Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Scotland Office (Funding)

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What discussions he has had with the First Minister about the funding of the Scotland Office. [96345]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I have discussed the resourcing of the Scotland Office with the First Minister on several occasions.

Mr. Morgan: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his whole Front-Bench team on retaining their posts after the recent Cabinet reshuffle. However, as his job is basically one of liaison and representation, why does he require a Minister of State, three special advisers, 64 civil servants and a budget 70 per cent. higher than the budget first set? Does he believe that that is good value for the taxpayer?

Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. I must explain to him that, despite the wishes of the Scottish National party, my role is to represent Scottish interests here in the United Kingdom Parliament on reserved matters within the competence of the United Kingdom Government. It was always envisaged that more staff and financial resources would be necessary to enable me to do that, as no scoping study had been carried out beforehand. The hon. Gentleman omitted to point out that my total budget is 0. 03 per cent. of the Scottish parliamentary budget and—I believe from memory—is about the same as he and his colleagues demanded in various allowances for the Scottish National party. I dare say that the interests of the people of Scotland in all the important matters that are discussed here are better represented by my colleagues and myself than by him and his party.

Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Of course the Secretary of State requires the resources to represent the people of Scotland. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when he is representing those

interests, especially in matters that touch on deeply held religious beliefs and convictions, he does so with great sensitivity and careful consideration?

Dr. Reid: I can give that guarantee; I would not do otherwise, because of my respect for all the people in Scotland. I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the Act of Settlement 1700, about which there has been much discussion. As a Roman Catholic myself—I am informed that, to the Government's credit, I am the first Roman Catholic to hold the office of Secretary of State for Scotland—I am only too well aware of the deep feelings and passions that surround the issue. I recognise that the discrimination inherent in the Act of Settlement is offensive to many people in Scotland and perhaps more widely. The fact that it has little practical significance does not negate its symbolic significance.
In the past I have merely pointed out that we have a heavy legislative programme based on our manifesto, which was endorsed by the people of this country and which we are pledged to implement. Neither the Prime Minister nor I have said that changes cannot be considered in future. Everyone in the House should be aware that too often in the past our country has been scarred by religious divisions. We all have a responsibility to handle the issue in a sensitive and considered fashion.
It does not help when those who have sat in this House, sometimes for years, and some as Ministers, and who have failed even to raise the matter, now parade themselves as the exclusive champions of non-discrimination. This is not an issue in which party advantage should or will be gained, and the Scottish people will not thank any party that attempts to use it in that way.

Mr. James Gray: The Secretary of State has explained why his staff had to increase. Apparently, it was because of the absence of something called a scoping study—although what that means is anybody's guess. Can he also explain why, when the Secretary of State had full responsibility for Scottish matters and there was no Scottish Parliament, the holder of the office had only two special advisers, whereas now that we have a Scottish Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman has three? Surely that is a propaganda machine for the Scottish Labour party, which he badly needs to keep that lot—the Scottish nationalists—under control.

Dr. Reid: I must explain to the hon. Gentleman, who comes from a party that is a master of management, that a scoping study is simple: we look at the tasks that have to be carried out, we scope the resources required and then decide upon those resources. He omitted to point out that before devolution the Secretary of State for Scotland presided over 4, 300 civil servants, whereas I have about 64 civil servants, 20 of whom work for my hon. and learned Friend the Advocate-General for Scotland. It is interesting to note that the old unholy alliance between the SNP and the Tories wishes the Scottish people to be deprived of the efforts of their Westminster Members of Parliament. The ideas of the SNP and the Tories, their candidates, their policies and their philosophies have been consistently rejected in Scotland, and there is no reason to expect that to change.

Sir Robert Smith: The Secretary of State talks about taking decisions on what money should be spent on the Scotland Office, and about the priorities of the Scottish people. Does he realise that the Scottish people's priority is investment in education and health? Does he also recognise their concern that continuing to invest in the Scotland Office could, in the long run, lead to a dependency culture among his Cabinet colleagues, who may fail to realise that they need to understand how their Departments except reserved matters in Scotland, and instead rely on him to pick up the pieces every time they get it wrong? Does he therefore accept that it would be much better if his budget were set by the Scottish Parliament, which represents the priorities of the Scottish people, so it could decide how much it wants to invest in that scope?

Dr. Reid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the priorities of the Scottish people are education, health and unemployment. I am pleased to say that 38,000 young people in Scotland are now on the new deal and off unemployment. Incidentally, that programme was opposed by the hon. Gentleman and his party when we commended it to the Scottish people. On the relationship between the Parliament at Holyrood and this Parliament, the hon. Gentleman—for all the tuition he has received from his learned colleagues—has misunderstood the nature of devolution. The Scottish Parliament is not a sovereign Parliament that devolves powers and money here: this is the sovereign Parliament, and it devolves powers and money to Scotland.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: May I bring the Secretary of State back to the issue of funding? He will accept that over the past two weeks he has been stripped of most of his residual Executive functions in respect of Scotland. In those circumstances, how can he justify having three special advisers, who are clearly there to advise him only on the management of presentation and facilitation, not on policy issues? Is not there a danger that by taking that approach he will play into the hands of the nationalists by giving the impression that he is seeking to interfere in what are domestic Scottish issues when his actual Executive functions are negligible?

Dr. Reid: First, the hon. Gentleman, for all his attempts to understand the devolution settlement, still does not seem to realise that reserved to this House are powers over a plethora of important subjects for the Scottish people—taxation, the welfare state, benefits, fiscal policy, macro-economic policy, industrial policy, the new deal, oil and gas exploration and telecommunications. The Secretary of State needs advice on all those issues. Incidentally, two of the special advisers are paid from the public purse and one is unpaid.
Secondly, although it may have passed the notice of the hon. Gentleman, we have just embarked on the most radical constitutional change in Britain in three centuries. That takes no little handling, and the many issues of importance to the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom are serviced by the small number of civil servants who now form the Scotland Office and by the advisers whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Anti-drugs Strategy

Mr. David Marshall: What measures are being taken by the United Kingdom Government to enhance anti-drugs campaigns in Scotland. [96346]

The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): Responsibility for drug misuse legislation, covering the UK, rests with Westminster. That ensures a common framework for action. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is due shortly to meet the UK's anti-drugs co-ordinator, Keith Hellawell, to discuss how they might work together to help to implement the anti-drugs strategy in Scotland, within the overall UK framework.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was the Tory Government's decision to cut many hundreds of Customs officers' jobs in the early 1980s that led to the flood of drugs into the UK in the first place? Is he aware of the growing concern among the public that the police are more interested in chasing motorists than in catching criminals and drug dealers, and that some court decisions and sentences are totally incomprehensible and inadequate? Will he convey those points to his colleagues in the Cabinet, and can he give the House an assurance that the Government have no plans to legalise drugs, now or in the future?

Mr. Wilson: I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that we have no plans to legalise drugs that are currently illegal, to set up a royal commission or to send out any mixed messages on drugs. There is no doubt that the reduction in the level of Customs and Excise presence around the coast was unhelpful in the fight against drugs. I will not criticise the actions of the police, who do much excellent work and achieve many successes, but in all our constituencies the presence of drugs is all too apparent. People who deal in heroin deal in death, and that is how the courts should deal with them.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: Will the Minister consider pressing his colleagues for a greater allocation of resources across the United Kingdom for voluntary youth work organisations? Scotland would get a share of that increase. Those organisations help to get young people away from drugs, and assist those on drugs to get off them. Money is best spent on better prevention systems. Will the Minister press for that?

Mr. Wilson: I have no doubt about the value of voluntary sector and community projects in such roles. For example, I hope that one of the United Kingdom's healthy living centres, funded through the new opportunities fund, will be set up in my constituency. Although it remains to be seen whether that project comes to fruition, that fund is another avenue of funding for initiatives with an anti-drug message. There is no particular shortage of money for voluntary and community organisations, but their place should be respected and recognised in the funding process.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I commend the all-UK anti-drugs policy under Keith Hellawell, to whom I had a chance to speak a couple of weeks ago. However,


is my hon. Friend aware that the Colombian cocaine harvest has increased by 50 per cent., and that the amount of pure heroin coming to Europe from Afghanistan through Pakistan has increased from 120 tonnes to 300 tonnes? Will he assure the House that the Government will increase the resources devoted to defending the young people of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom against the influx of poisonous drugs, which are now cheaper and more accessible than they have ever been?

Mr. Wilson: I endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, who is right to emphasise the importance of a UK-wide anti-drugs policy. Drug dealers and the substances that they deal in do not recognise boundaries in the United Kingdom any more than they recognise international boundaries. Action against them must be co-ordinated at UK level and worldwide, to cut off the sources of supply.
Dealing with the sources of supply is a many-faceted challenge. For one thing, cash crop alternatives to drugs must be made more attractive to small agricultural producers in the relevant countries. That must be co-ordinated internationally, which is undoubtedly one of the biggest challenges facing this or any society. The Government can take some credit—without any sense of complacency—for putting in place the instruments needed to combat the evil of drugs.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Secretary of State will confirm that, in respect of organised crime and of drugs in particular, the powers to authorise telephone tapping in Scotland have been transferred from him to the Home Secretary. Will he explain why that has been done, given that, in Scotland, the Home Secretary historically has had very little involvement in crime prevention? What is the justification for the change, and why was it announced in an extraordinarily underhand way in a written answer? If there is a wider policy justification, why was the change not fully explained?

Mr. Wilson: I must say that I am surprised by what seems to be a very un-Tory point for the hon. Gentleman to make. The calls being dealt with on a UK-wide basis are those that present a threat to the security of the state of the United Kingdom. Power with regard to crime in Scotland continues to reside in Scotland with the First Minister of a devolved Administration. I think that the hon. Gentleman did not understand that, but I realise that he does not have much time to devote to his duties relating to Scotland.

Rail Safety

Mr. Jimmy Hood: If he will make a statement on the role of the UK Government in improving railway safety in Scotland. [96347]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): The Government are committed to ensuring that passengers can travel safely and with confidence on Britain's railways.

Mr. Hood: I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in Scotland the confidential incident reporting and analysis system has been in use for some

time. Will he pass that information on to our right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions?
I look forward to the day when I can come to the House and discuss rail safety on the Larkhall line. Safety concerns on that line have become greater since last week's bad news from Marks and Spencer. Can I tempt my right hon. Friend to join me in condemning that company for betraying the people of Larkhall with that disgraceful decision?

Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend can tempt me, but I rarely succumb to temptation—from hon. Gentlemen anyway. However, I deeply regret the difficulties in which Daks in his constituency has been placed. I know that he met my hon. Friend the Minister of State this morning to discuss the issue, and we will try to do anything that we can in these difficult circumstances.
My hon. Friend is correct about rail safety. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has taken a lead on that. It is a tragedy that Paddington had to highlight this problem again. Let us hope that some good can come out of that awful situation. As my right hon. Friend said, the tragedy of Paddington has underlined the lack of confidence that many people have in safety on the railways. I am sure that the measures that he has driven forward since then, including a review of the standards of driver training, the accelerated implementation of the train protection warning system and an investigation into Railtrack's safety responsibilities will reap enormous safety benefits.
On a lighter note, the House will be pleased to hear that the safety record of railways in Scotland has been improving, despite an increasing number of trains on the Scottish network. That is not a reason for complacency. The railway industry must improve its safety record, and I am sure that that sentiment will be echoed by many outside this House, as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood).

Lockerbie

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on his responsibilities in respect of (a) legal and (b) other matters in relation to Lockerbie. [96348]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for legal or other matters relating to Lockerbie.

Mr. Dalyell: I wish my hon. and learned Friend well in what I think is her first appearance at the Dispatch Box. What are the Law Officers going to do—or what can they do—to enforce sub judice rules in press reports, some of which might prejudice the trial in Zeist?

The Advocate-General: I thank my hon. Friend for those kind words of welcome—especially coming from


him. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have no responsibility for the matter that my hon. Friend mentioned—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Lady, but we cannot hear her. She should speak into the microphone and not turn round.

The Advocate-General: I was explaining that my right hon. Friend and I have no responsibilities for those trial matters, which are very much in the sphere of the Lord Advocate.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I also welcome the Advocate-General to her first appearance at the Dispatch Box and welcome the fact that, according to the Scottish papers, it is not to be her last such appearance. Will she confirm that it is still the case that the unusual and extraordinary costs of the Lockerbie trial will be met by the Treasury and will not be a charge against the Scottish block grant?

The Advocate-General: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that he also remains with us for a long time, as there have been reports in the papers about his possible absence, too. His question is correct, but as the matter is not within my sphere I shall write to him to confirm that.

Beef on the Bone

Mr. James Paice: What discussions he or his officials have had with the Scottish Executive regarding the beef on the bone ban. [96349]

Mr. Andrew Robathan: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive about the beef on the bone ban. [96351]

Mr. Ian Bruce: What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Ministers in the Scottish Executive about removing the UK-wide ban on selling beef on the bone. [96358]

The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I keep in regular contact with ministerial colleagues and the Scottish Executive on this and other related issues. Everyone wants to remove the UK-wide ban on selling beef on the bone as soon as it is safe and sensible to do so. It is right and proper that that should be done in an orderly fashion across the UK. To do otherwise risks creating uncertainty for consumers and confusion for the industry.

Mr. Paice: I thank the Minister for his response, but surely the Secretary of State sits in the Cabinet and so shares collective responsibility for everything that is decided there and for all Government policies. What is the point of devolution if it means that English consumers cannot buy beef on the bone because the Scottish Executive thinks that Scottish consumers should not?

Mr. Wilson: Every answer to a Tory today seems to he a tutorial in common sense. The Scottish Executive has

nothing to do with the issue. It was the chief medical officers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who made the recommendations. Strangely enough, devolution has nothing to do with it because England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland had CMOs before devolution. All that happens is that a consensus is reached on what is best on a United Kingdom basis. On the basis of common sense, most people would see that it is better to move forward together rather than to fragment the approach within the United Kingdom. That is what has happened. [Interruption.] It is devolution but not fragmentation, which we do not want.

Mr. Robathan: In that unsatisfactory reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), the Minister talked about common sense. How is it common sense for the medical authorities in Carlisle and Cumbria to say that beef on the bone is safe to eat while in Dumfriesshire in Scotland it is apparently not safe to eat? Does he understand the damage that this is doing to the confidence of consumers abroad in British beef and the harm it is doing to farmers throughout Britain? The Government fixed the leadership of Wales and is trying to fix the mayoral nomination for London. Why do they not use their fixing powers to good effect for British consumers and farmers by fixing the beef on the bone ban and getting it lifted?

Mr. Wilson: The one thing that would damage confidence in British beef would be if we got it wrong again and ignored scientific advice. The record of the Conservatives on this was appalling. Their Government led us into the crisis from which we are still trying to escape. If they have not learned by now to respect scientific advice, they will never respect anything. If two medical officers a short distance apart give conflicting advice, we must, of course, respect the advice that errs on the side of caution. That is common sense as well.

Mr. Bruce: I hate to say it, but I am going to try to give the Minister a tutorial. The Conservatives want Scottish—and all United Kingdom—farmers to be able to sell their beef in a sensible way. He cannot possibly tell us, when it has been decided by the House—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Secretary of State would give me a moment. The House has decided that each of the sovereign Parliaments or Assemblies can make decisions separately and have separate food standards, but when they want such separate standards, the Government turn round and say, "No. Because they have taken different decisions, we are not going to go forward. " That is nonsense, and we are spending a lot of money, particularly on the Scotland Office, to no effect.

Mr. Wilson: The difference between us is that we have absolute respect for the consumer interest. We are absolutely determined not to fly in the face of scientific advice. Of course it is theoretically possible to get four different sets of advice from four chief medical officers—

Mr. Bruce: So we take four different decisions.

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a sensible approach within the United Kingdom, he is distinctly lacking in the commodity of common sense. In


the interests of British agriculture, the British consumer and the reputation of British beef abroad, it is clearly right that the United Kingdom should act as one.
I restate the point that the four chief medical officers were not invented by devolution. Those posts existed previously, and the Government are right to follow the line of common sense, which is to take the advice of three of the officers and to delay lifting the ban a little longer to ensure the absolute credibility of British beef when it returns to all the markets of the world.

Mr. Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend will be aware that I sought a fatal accident inquiry because a young constituent of mine was orphaned when his mother was lost to new-variant CJD. Does my hon. Friend agree that the main motivation for lifting the beef ban should be dietary safety, not the anti-European diatribe that we so often hear from the Opposition Benches?

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend brings a necessary sense of proportion to the discussion, which is not about anti-Europeanism or about cheer-leading for farmers—it is about the protection of consumers. Let us not forget that, as a result of the policies of the previous Government, a large number of people have met a horrible death from CJD. Therefore, we should act on the scientific advice and not deviate from it. When the whole of British beef is back into the markets of the world, it will be on the basis of absolute confidence. My hon. Friend is right to recall that there have been victims in this fiasco.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: We need no lessons from the Conservatives on common sense; they gave us BSE. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that there is puzzlement in the south-west of England. I should like him to explain to my constituents why, when Scotland and Wales can vote extra resources for their farmers, we cannot also have a different policy in England if devolution is to mean anything for England on this matter?

Mr. Wilson: It is possible, just as it was previously, for four different chief medical officers to give different advice. If the Government were so misguided as to do so, they could have different policies for different parts of the United Kingdom on the reintroduction of beef on the bone. The view taken by the Government is that it is far better to move forward together, when there is unanimity throughout the United Kingdom on giving beef on the bone the all clear. To send out a message to France, Germany or any other part of the world that beef from some parts of the United Kingdom is okay, but that there are still doubts about beef from other parts would be confusing. Ultimately, such a message would do even greater damage to British agriculture.

Mr. Eric Forth: What is the Minister's assessment of the relative threat to health from beef on the bone and from beef emanating from a food chain involving human sewage?

Mr. Wilson: I have one thing in common with the right hon. Gentleman—probably only one thing—and that is that I am not a scientist. Therefore, I respect best scientific advice in both instances.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Was not the scientific advice that was given last week that British

beef is the safest in Europe? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that? If we are in the mood for tutorials, can he confirm that the citizens of no other European country are prevented from eating beef on the bone, so can we please chuck all this rubbish? Will the hon. Gentleman show his confidence in Scottish beef, which is perhaps the best beef of all, and join me when I am in Scotland over Christmas and eat a jolly good T-bone steak?

Mr. Wilson: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's T-bone steak would be considerably larger than mine. However, this is not a light-hearted matter. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy). Let us not forget that a substantial number of people in this country have died because the previous Government acted irresponsibly in the face of scientific advice. That is what happened. I want normality to be restored in this respect. We must act according to the highest standards of the most impeccable advice. For the sake of weeks or days, we must not send out mixed messages. We must get this right. Then, British beef will enjoy the confidence and respect that we all want it to have, and the problems will never recur. Those are the actions of a responsible Government. All that we see yet again from the Tories is that they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. They think that they can fly a flag opportunistically for a minority interest in the face of the interests of consumers and British agriculture.

Manufacturing Industry

Dr. Lewis Moonie: What representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the effects of United Kingdom Government policy on the competitiveness of Scottish manufacturing industry. [96350]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): The Chancellor and I are in regular contact about the effects of United Kingdom Government policy on Scotland and its economy. Like the rest of the UK, Scotland has benefited from the fact that economic policy is now based on long-term stability, low inflation and sound public finances.

Dr. Moonie: I can heartily agree with that sentiment. Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to discuss with the Chancellor the effects of the climate change levy on companies such as British Alcan in my constituency?

Dr. Reid: I discuss a large range of issues with the Chancellor. Of course, convention prevents me from detailing any of them. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Chancellor has presided over a recovery in our economy, and a sustained and stable development of our economy that is unsurpassed, with inflation and interest rates—despite the increase that took place a few days ago—at a record low, and with unemployment in Scotland at an all-time low. That same Chancellor will address the House this afternoon, and perhaps my hon. Friend will then have a chance address himself to the other side of the equation.

Mr. John Swinney: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in advance of today's


pre-Budget report, especially in relation to the potential impact of the climate change levy on manufacturing companies in Scotland, and the real competitive disadvantage of the fuel duty escalator which has been affecting manufacturing companies throughout Scotland? If the Chancellor fails to announce the abolition of the fuel duty escalator this afternoon, will that be a failure of the Secretary of State's lobbying for Scotland? Will that not show that it is not the Secretary of State, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who takes the big decisions about the Scottish economy?

Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman knows that, along with all the other members of the Cabinet, I cannot reveal our discussions. However, he will have to wait only a little time before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor makes announcements on a range of issues. We can be certain of two things. The first is that the Chancellor and the Labour Government have presided over the most stable and prosperous British economy for many decades—even in the context of a very difficult global situation. Secondly, we should not have such certainty or stability from the hon. Gentleman or his party. Even on the one issue of the euro, they have managed to have three different policies in three years. At the last but one meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee, the hon. Gentleman called for differential interest rates for the Edinburgh region, which takes the biscuit. We all look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has to say this afternoon.

Mr. Tony Worthington: The Secretary of State attracted much praise for his role in saving the Kvaerner shipyard in Govan. The Kvaerner works in Clydebank—the former John Brown gas turbine works—are under a good deal of pressure. It is most important to maintain manufacturing capacity there. Discussions are taking place with the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish). Is the Secretary of State ready to give whatever assistance he can to save those jobs?

Dr. Reid: As my hon. Friend points out, the situation is difficult for the Kvaerner concern. I am aware of that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife, who is also the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong in the Scottish Parliament, has been following the matter closely and is involved in discussions about it. Should he feel that I can do anything, I shall of course be only too keen to assist him.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Secretary of State agree that the introduction of the minimum wage and the increase in national insurance contributions, together with the burden of the devolved Parliament in Scotland, have damaged the competitiveness of Scottish industry, as compared both with English and with other European industries?

Dr. Reid: Quite the opposite: the introduction of the minimum wage and the £100 bonus for pensioners at Christmas, the restoration of free eye tests, the biggest-ever increase in child benefit and the new deal, which has halved unemployment, have illustrated clearly that it is not impossible to combine social justice with

enterprise and a stable economy. Quite apart from the social justice programme, the output of the Scottish economy continues to expand, with gross domestic product up by 2. 3 per cent. in the year to the first quarter of 1999, manufacturing output up by 1. 2 per cent. in the past year and manufacturing exports up 6. 4 per cent. in the same period. The Labour Government have not only combined social justice and economic prosperity, but have put an end—for a long time, I hope—to the Tory years of boom and bust.

Single Currency

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: What representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the impact of a single European currency on the Scottish economy. [963521]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I am a member of the Standing Committee on European Monetary Union, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As my right hon. Friend has made clear, the determining factor underpinning any Government decision on the matter is whether the economic benefits to the United Kingdom of joining are clear and unambiguous.

Mrs. Laing: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. We heard his answer to an earlier question, so I wonder whether I can tempt him to admit that the pact he has made with the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish nationalists to start a campaign to scrap the Scottish pound is misguided. As opinion polls clearly show, the only party that represents the views of the majority of Scottish people on that subject is the Conservative party, which believes that Scotland, like the rest of the United Kingdom, should be in Europe but not run by Europe.

Dr. Reid: That was a good try, but I find myself able to resist on this occasion. I cannot respond to the point about what Tory Members of Parliament represent on any Scottish matter, because there are no Tory Scottish Members; however, as soon as the Tories produce one, I shall listen with great care.
As for the policy of the Scottish National party on the euro, it has a range of policies to appeal to a range of floating voters. In 1997, the SNP said it would have a separate Scottish pound,
pegged at parity to Sterling".
By March 1998, that position had changed: the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said that a Scottish pound could float down to a competitive level—in other words, a devaluation. Never content without revising a policy, Mr. Fergus Ewing said in June 1998 that an independent Scotland could enter economic and monetary union straight away. Finally, as I said earlier, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) has had the novel idea of having a differential interest rate for the Edinburgh area. I shall let the people of Scotland choose which of the SNP's four policies is the right one.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Is not the European Union the second largest market for Scottish exports, with the largest market being the rest of the United Kingdom? Do not those facts support the


European and constitutional policies of the Government and make nonsense of both the anti-European policies of the Conservative party and the anti-United Kingdom policies of the SNP?

Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Like the rest of the House, he knows that only last week we heard the Leader of the Opposition tell us that we should embark on a trade war with France—a country to which the Scottish whisky industry sells 127 million bottles a year. Such a trade war would do irreparable damage to a range of Scottish industries, including agriculture, textiles, salmon, telecommunications and high technology. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman was driven by the anti-Europeanism of the extremists on the Benches behind him.
However, was it not noticeable that, at Prime Minister's Question Time last week, although he had 30 minutes in which to do so, the Leader of the Opposition suddenly decided not to follow the route of urging a trade war? That route had been exposed as a thoroughly irresponsible course for any opposition party to take. That is why the right hon. Gentleman was silent last week—the first Member of Parliament to go chicken on beef.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Magistracy

Mr. Martin Linton: What steps the Government have taken to ensure that magistrates are representative of the communities they serve. [96375]

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What steps the Government have taken to ensure that magistrates are representative of the communities they serve. [96377]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor requires his advisory committees to make strenuous efforts to ensure that benches broadly reflect the communities that they serve in terms of gender, ethnic origin, geographical spread, occupation and political affiliation.

Mr. Linton: I welcomed my hon. Friend to her first public engagement, in Battersea; I now congratulate her on her appointment as she stands at the Dispatch Box.
I congratulate the Lord Chancellor's Department on having appointed so many justices of the peace from the ethnic minorities—I believe that the figure is 6. 5 per cent.—and also on the fact that 50 per cent. of appointments have been women, but does the Minister not believe that it is regrettable that only 1 per cent. of appointments to the bench have been of young people under the age of 30? Will she consider reviewing the unofficial age limit, which I believe is currently 26, on appointment to the bench?

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words, and to hon. Ladies and Gentlemen for the

warmth of their welcome. I appreciate the number of hon. Members attending questions to the Lord Chancellor's Department today—although I suspect that my fellow Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), and I, interesting though we are, are not the main attraction.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has instructed his advisory committee to make strenuous efforts to improve the gender, ethnic and political balances on the bench. A sub-committee will shortly be established specifically to address those issues, and I will ask my noble and learned Friend to consider the points that my hon. Friend made.

Mr. Quinn: May I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on her new position? I very much welcome the answer given some time ago. What representations has she made to employers' organisations to ensure that people who are in full-time work are given the opportunity to participate in this important part of our society?

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue and allowing me to explain the work that is going on in the area. It is an increasing problem, which my noble and learned Friend takes very seriously. In literature and seminars, employers are shown that the training that magistrates receive, and the experience that they gain on the bench, can be a positive advantage for the individual and an asset to the employer. The Lord Chancellor is considering what else he may need to do, in partnership with the Magistrates Association, to encourage more employers to allow their staff time off to become magistrates.

Mr. Christopher Gill: In the light of the answer that the hon. Lady gave to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), will she give the House an assurance that she will oppose any proposals to close magistrates courts in rural areas?

Jane Kennedy: Decisions about how magistrates courts are organised, the services that they provide and where they are provided are decisions for the local magistrates courts committees.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I add the official Opposition's congratulations to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), the two new Ministers in the Lord Chancellor's Department. We know that the Government are very keen on job creation, but we observe that it seems that two Ministers are now needed to do the job that was previously done by one.
Can the Minister confirm that it is important to ensure that it is the people who can take the best decisions who are appointed as magistrates? That is far more important than any matters of political correctness. While we are on the subject of the best people for legal jobs, would the Minister like to comment on the report in today's Evening Standard, which quotes the Lord Chancellor's biographer as saying that he may be quietly eased out before the next election as unsuited to politics?

Jane Kennedy: I have not seen that report, but given the important role of the lay magistracy, the hon. Gentleman might have taken the opportunity to ask me to join him in paying tribute to the thousands of men and


women who willingly give up their time to serve the public, without remuneration and often with little recognition or thanks. Without the lay magistracy, there would be no justice system, and the hon. Gentleman has missed a good opportunity to make that point.

Community Legal Service

Mr. Keith Darvill: What is the role of private practice solicitors within the Community Legal Service. [R] [96376]

Ms Sally Keeble: What the role is of private practice solicitors within the Community Legal Service. [96381]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The Community Legal Service will deliver the entire range of legal advice and assistance services, including representation, outside those delivered by the Criminal Defence Service. Private practice solicitors will be at the heart of the Community Legal Service, which will be a partnership between the private, public and not-for-profit sectors. They are essential to the success of the local networks of legal services that are being set up, and they will ensure the maximum possible coverage for the Community Legal Service, to the benefit of the public.

Mr. Darvill: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved appointment to the Front Bench. Does he agree that private practice solicitors are essential to the development of the Community Legal Service, and that the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Society should ensure that all private practice solicitors are aware of local initiatives, such as the advice providers' forum in the London borough of Havering?

Mr. Lock: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He is correct to say that it is vital that private practice solicitors should be involved in the Community Legal Service. Solicitors and the Law Society have been involved in the Government's plans from the earnn0iest stages. There is a reference to them in paragraph 3. 3 of the consultation paper, and Law Society representatives are serving on the quality task force. In addition, solicitors are serving on many of the 50 pioneer partnerships establishing best practice for the Community Legal Service up and down the country. We welcome the constructive role that solicitors are playing in making the service a reality.

Ms Keeble: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. How will his Department ensure that private practice solicitors who work for the Community Legal Service will provide a high-quality service? How will he ensure that solicitors co-operate fully with the voluntary sector so that people may receive advice and help at the right level?

Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. Under the traditional legal aid system, the quality of advice received could vary from excellent to appalling. Under powers in the Access to Justice Act 1999, all solicitors who provide services to the Community Legal Service will have a contract. The Legal

Services Commission will not enter into contracts with solicitors unless they have established that they can provide high-quality service. The days of paying for poor-quality legal services and subsidising dabblers and jacks-of-all-trades are over. Solicitors will have to co-operate within local partnerships to establish what needs they wish to provide and to make sure that services meet the highest priorities of their individual areas.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister is plainly keen to answer queries on the Community Legal Service as there are two identical questions on the Order Paper. Has he thought through the circumstances of typically rural areas such as my constituency, where a person might have to travel 35 miles to see a solicitor? How will the service work in reality?

Mr. Lock: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the questions on the Order Paper reflect a wide interest in the Community Legal Service. He is right to raise the issue of rural areas. Under the traditional legal aid system, we had no way of targeting legal services or prioritising the needs of people in rural areas. There was no way to pay for legal services provided other than by qualified solicitors, although some of the best advice—on benefits, debt and housing, for example—can come from people who are not fully qualified solicitors. We hope to develop a Community Legal Service gateway to allow Internet access which will be particularly relevant to those who live a long way from a solicitor, or who are disabled. Various strategies are being developed, and I entirely agree that rural issues are important to the development of the service.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Will there be more or fewer rural magistrates at the end of the Parliament than at the beginning?

Mr. Lock: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the nature of the Community Legal Service if he links it with magistrates. The Government value magistrates and, as my hon. Friend said, decisions about magistrates and magistrates courts are made primarily under legislation that the previous Government passed, and that the hon. Gentleman supports. They are within the control of local magistrates courts committees.

Office for the Supervision of Solicitors

Dr. Alan Whitehead: What discussions he has held with the Law Society concerning the operation of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [96378]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr.David Lock): I met the president of the Law Society on 20 October. I discussed with him the current position at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and the timetable that has been laid down by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor for the improvements in the performance of the OSS up to the end of December next year.

Dr. Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him on his richly deserved appointment.
What targets did he set for the Law Society and the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors at his meeting? What does he envisage happening if the targets are not met?

Mr. Lock: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor wrote to the president of the Law Society on 23 July and set the following targets: the number of unresolved cases on the office's books should be down to 6,000 by 30 December next year; subsequently, 90 per cent. of cases should be tackled within three months, and 100 per cent. within five months of receipt. He also said that the quality of decisions should not decline. We will judge that by the views of the legal services ombudsman.
The agenda is clear: reform of the OSS is essential. The Law Society is investing £10 million in reform. It must produce an acceptable quality, and a reliable and efficient system in solicitors' firms and in the office. If that does not happen, the Government will use the powers in the Access to Justice Act 1999 to enforce a proper complaints system for solicitors through the legal services ombudsman.

Mr. John Burnett: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretaries on their appointments. Will the Minister ask the Law Society whether its complaints and supervision committee has been excluded from discussions on the future of the OSS and whether the policy of handling complaints independently has been watered down? What action will the Government take to secure the independence of the OSS? Does the Minister consider the maximum compensation payment of £1,000 to be adequate? If not, what will he do, and when will he do it?

Mr. Lock: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind words. There have been persistent rumours about the exclusion of the Law Society's complaints and supervision committee. I am assured that that is not so. Both the chairman and the lay chairman of the committee sit on the OSS change management task force. I would be interested to discover the source of the rumours.
There is no question of watering down the independent handling of complaints in firms. When the president of the Law Society spoke at its conference last week, he made it clear that client care and the proper handling of complaints in solicitors' firms should be a priority.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor told the Law Society that he considers the present compensation limit of £1,000 for unsatisfactory professional service inadequate and proposes to increase it to £5,000.

Mr. John Bercow: Does the Minister accept that urgent reform of the OSS is vital, not least to a long-suffering constituent of mine—Mr. Philip Stanton of Greenacres, Marsh road, Shabbington, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire—who has undergone a harrowing ordeal? He will veritably dance round the political mulberry bush with the Minister if thoroughgoing and effective reform is forthcoming without delay.

Mr. Lock: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observations. He gave us all the details of the case, except for the postcode.
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. There has been a long history of failure by the Law Society to provide effective complaints mechanisms for clients who have not been satisfied with the way in which their cases have been handled. The problem goes back to the days of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau and to the early days of the OSS. However, this Government took powers in the Access to Justice Act 1999 to enforce the right to complain. We took effective action and the Act gives us the stick which is now being wielded.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to see the targets, they are set out in the letter that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has placed in the Library. I assure him that we shall monitor the performance of the OSS against those targets. Should it fail to provide the complaints system that all members of the House are entitled to expect for their constituents, we shall have no choice but to act.

Pre-Budget Statement

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The challenge a year ago, amid global turbulence and predictions of recession. was to steer a course of stability. Now, with this year's pre-Budget report, the challenge is to lock in that stability and—by pressing ahead with our economic reforms—to set the course for a Britain of stability and steady growth.
The reforms made and the reforms to be made today reflect our resolve that Britain must leave behind the sterile, century-long conflict between enterprise and fairness—between the left, which promoted the good society at the expense of the good economy, and the right, which promoted the good economy at the expense of the good society, and too often achieved neither. Only by pursuing enterprise and fairness together—enterprise and fairness for all—can we equip all of Britain for our future and secure rising living standards for all.
Having laid the foundations with our monetary and fiscal reforms, Britain can now aspire to a new economic ambition for the next decade: a faster rise in productivity than our main competitors, as we close the productivity gap.
Making the most of our economic potential depends on employing all the talents of all the people. So, building on our education reforms and £19 billion of investment, the Government's second ambition for the next decade is that all people gain the highest qualifications that they can, with a majority of our school leavers for the first time in our history going on to degrees.
Having modernised with the new deal and with our reforms to make work pay, Britain can now reach for a third ambition in the next decade: a higher percentage of people in work than ever before.
Because a fair society and the strongest economy depend on leaving no one behind, Britain must now build on the reforms taking nearly 1 million children out of poverty and give every child the best possible start in life. So our fourth ambition is that by the end of the next decade child poverty will be reduced by half, on our way to ending child poverty within 20 years. These are decisions for a decade of reform to create a Britain of prosperity for all as together we create a Britain where there is opportunity for all.
The foundation—our first priority yesterday, today and tomorrow—is to lock in that fiscal and monetary stability. The economy of 1997 was characterised by inflationary pressures, unsustainable consumer spending and a large structural deficit in the public finances with public sector borrowing of £28 billion. Indeed, Britain was set to repeat the old, familiar cycle of boom and bust. Since then, we have created and rigorously adhered to a new framework of modern economic management: a clearly defined inflation target and clear fiscal rules backed up by legislation for an independent Bank of England and a regime of fiscal stability.
Over the past year, inflation has remained at or around our target. Today, underlying inflation is 2.1 per cent. Expectations of inflation 10 years on, which were 4.3 per cent. when we came to power, are now at 2½ per cent. Having come this far, we will not relax our discipline. Our pre-Budget report is based on meeting the inflation target of 2½ per cent. not just this year but next year and the year after that.
Early action on interest rates now prevents a return to the drastic action of the past. Those who would refuse to take the necessary pre-emptive decisions to meet our inflation target would risk returning our economy to the days of inflation out of control, unbalanced economic growth and 15 per cent. interest rates. Under this Government, Britain will not return to the boom and bust of the past.
Discipline is even more essential because of the changed global context. Last year, north America was the engine for world growth. Now this year, Europe and Japan are once again making their contribution. Although the 1998 challenge to avoid recession has been met, the new challenge is to grow while controlling inflation, and that must make us all vigilant.
I come to our economic forecasts. Last November, I said that I expected growth in 1999 to be 1 to 1½ per cent.—a forecast that I reaffirmed in the Budget that I presented last March. I have been re-reading the debates that took place at the time. There were predictions of recession from experts, and others, but the whole House will be pleased to know that, as the Government forecast, the economy has continued to grow.
The Treasury forecast is that growth this year will be 1¾ per cent. I can also report to the House that the Treasury forecast for next year is that the economy will grow by 2½ to 3 per cent, and that in 2001 and 2002 it will grow by 2¼ to 2¾ per cent, at all times consistent with meeting our inflation target. Britain is steering a course of stability and steady growth, and we will not take risks with the future of our economy.
In our first two years, public borrowing has been reduced by £30 billion—a cumulative fiscal tightening of 3 per cent. of gross domestic product. We will continue to lock in that fiscal tightening by keeping the public finances under control.
Our first fiscal rule—the golden rule—is that over the cycle there is a current surplus. At this stage in the financial year, I can provide an interim update on the Budget figures. The Treasury forecast for this financial year—1999–2000—is that the current Budget will be in surplus by £9½ billion. I have said that we will not make the old mistake of confusing a cyclical surplus with a structural surplus. In subsequent years the surplus is forecast to be plus 11, 13, 13, 12 and 11. I can therefore report that, based on prudent and cautious assumptions audited by the National Audit Office, we are on course to balance the current Budget over the cycle.
Our second fiscal rule—the sustainable investment rule—is that debt is set at a sustainable and prudent level. Under the previous Government, national debt doubled from £166 billion to £348 billion. In the past three years, debt's share of national income has fallen from 44 per cent. to 42 per cent, to an estimated 38. 2 per cent. at the end of this financial year and to 37 per cent. next year.
Over the economic cycle we will keep debt below 40 per cent. of national income. As a result of falling levels of debt and lower long-term interest rates, interest payments are down each year by more than £4 billion—money available for public services.
For all those who have an interest in economic and monetary union, I can report—in the tradition set by my predecessor—that this year and in future years Britain will be well within the Maastricht criteria.
Having inherited a deficit of £28 billion, I can now report that, in the year ending March 1999, we repaid debt by a total of £2½ billion. This year we expect to repay debt by a total of £3½ billion—a total of £6 billion in debt repaid in two years, at the right time in the economic cycle.
Consistent with our fiscal rules that we balance the current budget and borrow only for investment, our forecasts for public sector net borrowing in future years are minus 3, minus 3, plus 1 and plus 4. The British economy is clearly on track to meet our fiscal rules.
In the past, as figures for surpluses and deficits were reported, Budget debates too complacently focused on dividing up the national wealth. Today, in a competitive global economy, Budgets must meet the long-term challenge of helping to expand the national wealth. Indeed, living standards can continue to rise only if Britain continues modernising. Therefore, on the foundation of monetary and fiscal reform, we must build a pro-investment, pro-competition, pro-enterprise Britain to meet our first ambition to raise our productivity to the world's best.
For too long British investment has been too low, productivity increases too slow, the potential of new markets and new technologies too often squandered. Today, Britain still has only half the rate of business start-ups and only half the rate of share ownership of the United States, where nearly 50 per cent. of people own shares. The British economy needs high levels of investment and entrepreneurship, and I now propose new measures to encourage more investment and to give more people the chance to invest.
We have already cut small companies tax from 23p to 20p, introduced a starting rate of small business tax at lop in the pound, cut mainstream corporation tax from 33 per cent. to 30 per cent. to its lowest ever level, and introduced first-year investment incentives that are of special help to manufacturing.
I now propose to go further. Under Governments of both parties, capital gains tax for every investment, from the most productive to the most speculative, has been at 40 per cent. For years as a country we have debated why long-term investment in Britain has been so low. A 40 per cent. rate of tax on long-term investment discourages the capital formation and sustained reinvestment that Britain needs to reach its full potential.
In the 1998 Budget, we took the first step, reducing capital gains tax on investments of 10 years or more. Subject to consultation on the details, the Budget will make a more radical reform to promote not just high-technology investment but long-term investment across the economy in Britain. To Britain's prospective and actual investors and entrepreneurs I say: invest for three years and the capital gains tax rate will be not 40 per cent. but 22 per cent.; invest for five years and the tax rate will be not 40 per cent. or 22 per cent. but 10 per cent.
Having cut taxes for individuals who invest in business, my second major tax reform is to cut taxes for companies which invest. In competitor countries, growing companies do well because large companies invest in them. Tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will give full details of a substantial tax incentive to generate new jobs in Britain from corporate venturing. Large companies that invest in

growing companies for a specified period will, from next year, receive a tax relief of 20 per cent., underwriting one fifth of their investment, and companies which reinvest gains in new ventures will be able to defer tax on capital gains. That £100 million incentive can bring additional investment of hundreds of millions of pounds every year in Britain.
I turn now to the details of a third tax reform designed to create both a high-investment economy and a wealth-owning democracy open to all. I can announce that, under our new employee share ownership reform, all shares held by employees for five years will be exempt both from income tax and capital gains tax. From April, only four months from now, employees will be able to receive shares worth up to £3,000 in their companies, free of income tax, giving a tax saving of up to £1, 200. Employees will also be able to purchase £1, 500 of additional shares from their pre-tax salary, giving a tax saving of up to £600. For those who purchase shares, employers will be able to award an additional £3,000 of shares, another tax saving of up to £1, 200.
This is the most generous all-employee shares incentive a British Government have ever introduced, and there is only one condition: it is open to everyone in every firm. I urge employers and employees together to consider long-term investment in their firm's success—in preference to inflationary wage rises, which in the end bring higher interest rates, choose investments in the future, which can bring real gains.
Enterprise for all calls for a larger number of small businesses doing well, so the pre-Budget report provides details of new incentives for small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy: a new enterprise grant, enterprise incentives for managers and a new research and development tax credit targeted at small businesses, which is the most generous the country has seen and worth £150 million a year. Enterprise for all demands balanced economic growth across all the regions and the nations of Britain so, through regional development agencies and the work of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations, locally based venture capital funds will now be set up in every region of our country, from north to south.
Yesterday, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced that it will locate its European centre in Britain. From next year, the new regionally based enterprise centres attached to our universities will be able to draw on the management and research expertise of the new MIT-Cambridge partnership and put it to work for manufacturing and industry in every region of our country.
Enterprise for all depends on opening up competition to all, and it is time to build on the Government's decision to create a new independent Competition Authority. For cartels and anti-competitive behaviour, the Office of Fair Trading will, from March next year, be given new investigative resources and trust-busting weapons, including the power to impose fines of up to 30 per cent. of turnover. For banking and financial services, the Financial Services Authority will now, for the first time, be required to facilitate competition with a new scrutiny role for the competition authorities.
For the professions, the Government will examine how best to ensure that the rules of professional bodies do not unnecessarily restrict or distort competition. For the


regulatory system and following the Cruickshank interim report, the Government will consider how to scrutinise regulatory bodies and review existing and proposed regulations to ensure that they are promoting, not impeding, new entrants and competitive forces. For the planning system, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is today announcing a series of changes in planning guidelines that will, for the first time, facilitate the formation of high-tech clusters in industry. For the first time, the planning system will be required to promote competition.
For high-tech businesses that need key skills, we will reform the rules on work permits and open them up to essential workers in information technologies and to entrepreneurs. For the utilities, the forthcoming utility reform Bill will explicitly require the regulators for gas, electricity and water to promote competition. In sum, Britain will be more open to competition, fair to consumers and at the leading edge of change.
We are determined also that Britain will break out of the closed circle that has too often restricted the opportunities of enterprise to a few. We want to encourage those who start with nothing and who, in the past, thought that they could never reach higher or rise far and tell them that there is not only a chance for them to do better, but no limit to their ambitions for themselves and their children. Our poor communities do not need more benefit offices; they need more businesses creating more jobs, so we are resolved to extend the opportunities of enterprise to people and places that the economy has too often forgotten.
The new deal will now offer help for long-term unemployed men and women to become self-employed and to start a business—for the over-50s, up to £3,000 during the first year in business and in work. Help for prospective businesses will be available from a new enterprise development fund that we are creating, and we will also provide cash help for people moving from benefits into a business, including support for micro-loans for small business investment.
Our proposals will also include new scholarships for dynamic business men and women in our poorest areas to learn new management skills. To encourage the next generation of entrepreneurs, we aim to double to 200,000 the number of pupils able to benefit from entrepreneurship courses in our schools. With support that has already been pledged to us from many of our most successful business men and women, we will launch a new national campaign for enterprise under which schools and colleges will be directly partnered with local companies.
Britain needs radical improvements not only in enterprise but education, as we are ensuring. We are determined to achieve another ambition by the end of the next decade: to realise the Prime Minister's commitment to education—the highest standards in our schools, all young people gaining the highest possible qualifications, and the majority of school leavers gaining degrees. So, in addition to the university for industry, individual learning accounts, the expansion of further and higher education places by 800,000 and the meeting of new targets for literacy and numeracy in our schools, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who has pioneered the reforms, will

announce a major new expansion in IT education and skills, including 50,000 new college places. In the new knowledge economy, no one should be left out.
Our ambition is work for all—a higher percentage of men and women employed than ever before. After two and a half years of this Government, unemployment is lower than at any time in the past 20 years. This Government have delivered not only the new deal but new jobs: 700,000 more since 1997. The minimum wage and the working families tax credit are making work pay, but we need to go further. There are today 1 million job vacancies waiting to be filled. Vacancies are at record levels, not in one region alone but in every region of the United Kingdom. We need to equip the unemployed with all the skills that they need for the jobs that exist.
So, I can announce that the new deal, first introduced for the under-25s, will be extended to all those over 25 years old in every part of the country. Options will include the offer of a job with a private sector employer, self-employment, work-based retraining or college training, backed up by advice, counselling and mentoring—honouring our commitment to tackle long-term unemployment.
I can also announce new choices for lone parents to gain new skills, go to college and go to work. From now on, lone parents will not only be able to train for jobs while receiving income support, but will benefit from college-based child care places for 10,000 more children—making a total of 37,000 places. All lone parents with children over the age of three will receive notice of those new choices.
In 1909, Britain created the first labour exchanges in the world in order to link potential employees to vacant jobs. Today, with 1 million vacancies throughout the country, Britain must use the most modern technology in order to match those jobs without workers to the workers who have no jobs. We shall create a national jobs phone line whereby, for the first time in every locality, the Employment Service will continuously update unemployed men and women about new vacancies that are suitable for their skills. For every constituency in the country, the Government will provide assistance to enable Members of Parliament, irrespective of political party, to bring the unemployed and potential employers together.
Our reforms since 1997 have cut youth and long-term unemployment by half. A return to full employment was once a dream. Now, it is not only a promise and a possibility, but, in the next decade, if we stay the course, it can become one of our country's proudest achievements.
As we extend opportunities to those who are out of work, we will extend the responsibility to take up the work on offer. The informal or hidden economy is draining billions of pounds in fraudulent benefit claims and unpaid taxes. That loss of revenue, this incidence of fraud, the waste of resources, cannot be allowed to continue, especially when there are jobs that benefit claimants could take.
Lord Grabiner QC will chair a task force, bringing together the Treasury, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Departments of Social Security and for Education and Employment. He will investigate the scale of the problem and the cost to the taxpayer, recommend a plan of action and set a timetable to crack down on the hidden economy. He will examine ways to move economic activity from illegitimate to legitimate


businesses. He will consider increased fines for fraud, and new requirements specifically for those suspected of being in the hidden economy to sign on for benefit not every fortnight but every single day.
I say to the unemployed who can work: we will meet our responsibility to ensure that there are job opportunities and the chance to learn new skills; they must now meet their responsibility to earn a wage. We are ensuring that work pays more than benefits. All our measures, taken together, mark a new dividing line. The Government believe that the way to help the unemployed is by extending the new deal, not abolishing it.
As we pursue our ambitions for growth and jobs, we can and must keep our environmental commitments. Under my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, Britain took the lead in successfully negotiating the Kyoto agreement, and I am today announcing the results of our consultation with business on the climate change levy. Our original proposal was to cut environmental pollution by 1. 5 million tonnes a year by 2010. Our consultation has shown that we can cut environmental pollution even further by 2010—by more than 2 million tonnes a year—and at the same time cut the levy from £1. 75 billion to £1 billion.
I have decided that renewable energy sources and combined heat and power will be exempt from the levy. The main rate per kW hour will be cut from 0. 21p to 0. 15p, and there will be an 80 per cent. discount to energy-intensive sectors signing energy efficiency agreements. Taken together, those changes approach a 90 per cent. discount on the levy published at Budget time in return for agreed industry action to cut emissions.
All the revenues raised will be recycled to business. I can confirm that every business will receive a tax cut of 0. 3 percentage points in employer national insurance contributions. I have ensured not only that that package is revenue neutral for business and revenue neutral between manufacturing and services, but that even after the national insurance change there will be no gain to the public purse.
In the run-up to the Budget, we will consult on a new 100 per cent. first-year investment allowance for companies moving from environmentally unfriendly to environmentally friendly technologies and processes. I propose to make available not, as originally announced, £50 million, but in the first year a total of £150 million to support energy efficiency in British industry. With all those measures taken together, Britain is on track to meet our country's Kyoto target.
The fuel escalator was inherited from the previous Government. [Interruption.] The Conservatives cannot deny their history. Since 1997, the escalator has been needed to reduce the £28 billion deficit that we inherited, as we put in place our new measures to protect the environment. Those who have opposed the escalator—including some of those who originally imposed it—have to explain how, without it, they would have cut the deficit, made money available for public services and met our environmental commitments in the past two years.
Having cut the deficit and introduced our new environmental policies, we are now in a position—instead of the pre-announced 6 per cent. escalator—to make our decisions Budget by Budget, with the following commitment: if there are any real terms rises in road

fuel duties, they will be lower and the revenues will go straight to a ring-fenced fund for the modernisation of roads and public transport.
Now that the return-leg exemption from air passenger duty has been declared in breach of single market law, I am today starting a pre-Budget consultation on replacing it with a new lower rate for lower fares. The changes will be revenue neutral.
Today I am also implementing recommendations that have come from Martin Taylor to prevent, detect and punish tobacco smuggling. Smuggling now costs us £2. 5 billion a year. The pre-Budget report contains details of our decisions—new scanners at major ports to detect contraband goods, new cigarette pack marks, and new and tougher fines and penalties for those who smuggle and those who sell smuggled goods.
Our next ambition is to reduce and then abolish child poverty in Britain. The promise of the next decade should not be just for some children but for every one of Britain's children. By April, child benefit for the first child will be £15. By the next April, for the typical family, child benefit and the children's tax credit will be £23. With our lop starting rate of income tax and the cut from 23p to 22p in the basic rate, the tax burden—national insurance and income tax—for the average family will be cut to its lowest level for 25 years.
Our intention is to integrate the children's tax credit and the child elements of the working families tax credit and income support into one single credit paid direct to the mother, and built on the foundation of universal child benefit. At today's prices, that would mean child payments starting at £15 a week, in contrast to £11 in 1997, and, for the poorest child, rising to more than £40 a week.
Our pre-Budget consultations will also examine whether through the working families tax credit or other measures we can give more help to the mother who wishes to stay at home in the first months after her child is born. Government must do more, but Government on their own cannot win the war against child poverty—it can be won only by the combined energies of public, private and voluntary sectors working together. We need not only cash but care. Therefore, the pre-Budget report will consult on new reforms to support the community organisations that are closest to people and where dedicated staff and volunteers can offer one-to-one help.
First, we will set up a new children's fund which will provide project grants for community action to tackle all aspects of child poverty. Secondly, so that we can develop new and innovative ways to support families and children, sure start will now see resources devolved not just to local government but to local partnerships led by neighbourhoods and the voluntary sector.
Thirdly, for too long the voluntary sector has been held back by outdated tax laws. We propose that, in future, for every £1 a British citizen donates to charity, the Government will contribute to that charity an additional 28p. For every £1 contributed through payroll giving, the Government will contribute 50p worth of tax relief. There will now be tax relief not just for cash donations but for gifts of quoted shares. The British people's willingness to give can give all our children a better chance, and all of us a better society.
From a platform of a stable economy and sustainable finances, we are delivering £40 billion extra for health and education. It is only by continuing our policies for


stability and steady growth that we will be able to achieve a further ambition for Britain—to build the best public services for the long term. In our second comprehensive spending review, to be completed next year, we will match investment with reform, increasing the amount of resources available for the NHS and education in our public services. I can announce two decisions that can be made now.
Through the windfall levy, 5,000 schools throughout Britain have already been modernised. With the addition of a further £150 million to the £4 billion already allocated for schools capital, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will be able to treble that figure. By 2001, the number of schools modernised or being modernised will total 15,000—half the schools of Britain—benefiting more than 5 million pupils.
There is a strong public health case for year-on-year, real term increases in the price of cigarettes. While we will now make our decisions Budget by Budget, I can announce a new approach: the extra revenues from a 5 per cent. real terms rise in cigarette duties would go straight to additional investment in the national health service, worth £300 million a year—that is £300 million extra for hospitals and health care which could start next April.
I have a further announcement to make. From this week, the £100 winter allowance is being paid to every pensioner household in Britain. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will announce later today that the winter allowance will be paid not just this year but next year, and every year from now on. For pensioners with incomes above benefit level who are not wealthy, we propose a better deal on savings. The elderly especially will benefit from my proposal to cut the starting rate of tax on savings from 20p to 10p—some 1. 5 million pensioners will benefit.
I have one final announcement. All Governments have agreed that we ought to provide the most help for our most elderly citizens—those over 75 or 80 who are more likely to be in poverty and more likely to have special needs. Some have suggested a new age-related addition to benefits. Some have suggested that the way to do this is to provide the very elderly with a reduction in the television licence fee. I have rejected that option. Instead, from next autumn, every pensioner aged 75 or more will receive their television licence free of charge. At a cost of £300 million a year, every one of the 3 million households with a pensioner aged over 75 will be able to save £101 a year.
This Government are demonstrating that enterprise and fairness can go hand in hand. This Government's work for Britain has only just begun. I commend the pre-Budget report to the House.

Mr. Francis Maude: This statement has one purpose, and one purpose only—to capture tomorrow's headlines. It will do nothing to reverse the underlying damage that the Chancellor's policies are doing to our economy.
Under this Chancellor, saving has fallen by a half and productivity growth has fallen by two thirds. The burden of tax under this Chancellor is rising by more than in any of our competitor countries in Europe. In opposition,

the Prime Minister and his party opposed every reform that has made Britain competitive. His policies since the election have chipped away at the dynamism that took 18 years to build. This statement does nothing to rebuild that dynamism.
Will the Chancellor now admit what even the Prime Minister has let slip, and what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development confirmed last week—that the burden of tax in Britain is rising, more quickly than anywhere else in Europe? Extra taxes total £40 billion, or £1, 500 for every taxpayer. There are extra, rising taxes on motoring, marriage, mortgages, saving, giving, pensions, enterprises, the new economy, dividends, property, insurance, travelling and retirement.
Only one Labour Member is prepared to speak the truth about taxes—the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). It is no wonder that the Prime Minister is trying to suppress the hon. Gentleman, or that he does not want him to have a voice. The hon. Gentleman has said:
We haven't increased the top rate of tax and the standard rate of tax, but we have increased a lot of other taxes, and we have done it with all these stealth taxes. I just think it would have been better to have honestly told people beforehand. 
The reality is that the more that the Chancellor denies that he has raised taxes, the less people will believe him. Is not his decision today to climb down and make some concessions on the energy tax an admission that the environment was never anything but a cover for new taxes? The Chancellor has admitted that these new taxes will inflict severe damage—that is why he is making the concessions—so why can he not bring himself to abandon them altogether?
The Prime Minister said earlier this year that it was irresponsible to abandon the automatic road fuel duty escalator. The Chancellor said that to do so was impossible, and in fact he has dramatically increased the escalator since the election—three times in two years, so that it is now well above the level that he inherited. Does not that amount to an admission that it was nothing more than a stealth tax to raise extra money? Is not today's statement a belated admission of the damage that he has done to hauliers, so many of whom have already moved abroad? That business is now lost to Britain, and it will not return just because he has made this belated admission.
All those taxes erode Britain's competitiveness. Is not the world already tough enough for businesses without them having to carry the Chancellor on their backs as well? The House can rarely have heard—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order. The right hon. Gentleman must be given a proper hearing.

Mr. Maude: The House can rarely have heard a Chancellor speak so complacently of an economy that, last year, missed recession by a whisker and where manufacturing was in recession. [Interruption.] The Chancellor laughs, but 190,000 people in manufacturing in constituencies represented by Labour Members lost their jobs. The number of business failures has risen and is continuing to rise. Even the Chancellor cannot be smug about that.
What has happened to productivity growth—the test that the Chancellor set for his policies? The OECD has already shown that it has fallen since the Chancellor took


over. He thinks that it is funny, but it is the test that he set for himself. The OECD figures show that productivity growth has fallen by two thirds since he took over. In case he wants to trash that as being only the OECD number, as he trashed the tax numbers, let him look at his own paper—published yesterday—on the trend rate of growth and the graph that shows that productivity growth has plummeted since he took over. He can postulate a long-term increase in the productivity rate to justify his higher rate of growth only by taking an eight-year average—by including the whole of the period of the previous Government during which productivity did grow by more than 2 per cent. a year. That growth just about offsets the catastrophic fall in productivity since then.
Let the Chancellor answer this: given his sustained attack on people who save, is he surprised that the rate of saving has fallen by a half? Does he think that that matters? Does he think that it is trivial to the future of Britain's economy?
The Chancellor has made much of his so-called measures for enterprise, including capital gains tax. We have seen all this before—a few concessions to catch the headlines and distract attention from the real damage being done to business. Was not the president of the Confederation of British Industry right to say that any cuts in business taxes
are more than offset by the windfall tax, the loss of the dividend tax credit, and now the climate change levy. The sums they give back are trivial by comparison"?
Of course, we support schemes to increase share ownership, but what has happened since the Chancellor took over? When we left office, 15 million people owned shares—today, it is 12 million. Now, the right hon. Gentleman claims to be the champion of share ownership. If he really wants to help the self-employed, instead of fiddling little schemes, why does he not scrap IR35, his new stealth tax? It is already driving thousands of entrepreneurs abroad—congratulations, a new Labour brain drain.
It is no wonder that four out of five firms now think that Labour is hostile to them. The Chancellor has been beating them over the head with higher business taxes and more regulation. He offers them half an aspirin and expects them to be grateful. They do not want half an aspirin; they want him to stop beating them over the head with the higher taxes and extra regulations.
The Chancellor hopes that we will oppose his plans to spend more money on health and education, but I am going to disappoint him…we welcome…money for those priority services."— [Official Report, 14 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 195-96.]
I said that last year and I say it again today. We support increases in health and education spending. It is just a pity that waiting lists are longer; it is just a pity that class sizes are higher; and it is just a pity that there are fewer police on the beat and that crime is rising.
What happened to the Prime Minister's famous pledge that Labour would
cut the bills of social security"?
Cut them? They are up by nearly as much as health and education added together. The Government said that they would reform welfare. Well, that did not last long.
The Chancellor ought to target help on those who cannot help themselves—that is the common-sense approach. He punishes people who try to help themselves. He punishes people who want to do the right thing, who want to work and save, who tell the truth.
This Chancellor claims to be prudent. He is only prudent with the truth. He says one thing, he does another. He talks pro-business, he acts anti- business. He talks less regulation, he imposes more. He claims taxes are falling when everyone knows that they are rising. Anyone independent who tells the truth, he rubbishes. Any definition that is inconvenient, he changes. Any statistic he dislikes, he fiddles. He is the salesman who says, "Don't worry about the fine print, just look at the slogans. " He is the man in the pub who says, "Give me a fiver and I'll buy you a pint. "
There is a new corruption infecting British politics today: the corruption of the smug few who are trying to make mugs out of the many.

Mr. Brown: I will deal with each point that the shadow Chancellor made in turn, but let me ask him first about misleading the House. Last year, he said that there would be a recession; there has been 2 per cent. growth, so he has got that wrong. Last year, he said that investment would collapse; investment has been rising 6 per cent. this year. He got that wrong. Last year, he said that unemployment would rise dramatically. It has fallen by 100,000, and he got that wrong. Last year, he said that savings would collapse. Savings are rising; he has got that wrong. Last year, he said that we could not afford £40 billion on health and education. We can afford £40 billion, so he got that wrong.
The only thing that is certain about the right hon. Gentleman's predictions is that he always gets them wrong. He is extreme and incompetent; so far right, and now exposed as so far wrong. [Interruption.] They do not like it. His words were "fantasy forecast", "Peter Pan economics", "Wonderland politics", "false and fairy tale figures" and "reckless gambles"—and he accuses me of trying to make the newspaper headlines.
The shadow Chancellor's first question was about tax. The tax burden is falling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.] Yes, it is: 37. 4 per cent. to 37 per cent. to 36. 8 per cent. It is falling beyond the plans that we inherited from the previous Government. If people want to understand why it is falling, there is a 10p tax rate—a Labour tax cut. Income tax has fallen from 23p to 22p—a Labour tax cut. Corporation tax is down to 30p—a Labour tax cut. Small business tax is 10p a Labour tax cut. Today, there is capital gains tax at 10p—a Labour tax cut. The people who put up taxes are the Conservatives: 22 tax rises. That is why no one will trust anything that they say on tax.
I listened to what the shadow Chancellor said about what now passes for a Conservative economic policy. The Conservatives opposed Bank of England independence and put at risk stability. They opposed the necessary interest rate rises and put at risk inflation. They now opt for top-rate tax cuts, just like in 1988. In fact, their economic policy is 1988 all over again. Boom and bust—that is the Tories' economic policy on which they will fight the general election. It is hardly surprising, because he was one of the architects of boom and bust. He was at the Treasury from 1990 to 1992, as spending went out of control and interest rates were at 15 per cent.
On the Conservative policy on taxation and spending, the shadow Chancellor tells us that he opposed the £40 billion spending on health and education last year. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor opposed spending £40 billion on health and education. He said that it was


reckless, wasteful and that we would have to go back a bit and cut public spending. To pay for the tax cuts that he announced yesterday, he would have to cut public spending. Tax cuts for the few to pay for public spending cuts for the many. Over the next few months, the Conservative party must tell us which hospitals they would close, which schools they would shut, how many and which teachers they would make redundant and how many nurses in which constituencies they would put out of work.
This is not theory. The Conservative health spokesman is going round the country telling people that he would have private medical insurance for people and would cut out non-urgent operations from the national health service. Already his friend, the shadow Home Secretary, has said that she wants new charges in the national health service.
So that is the dividing line. The Tory party—stop/go. Labour—stability and steady growth; Labour creating employment. The Conservatives are the party of unemployment. Labour is the party that helps working families with child benefit, the working families tax credit and our cuts in taxation. The Conservatives would hurt working families. Labour is the party of public services. The Conservatives are the party that would privatise public services. Tax is falling in this country. The party that would put taxes up is the Conservative party.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: My right hon. Friend has received international acclaim for his responsible handling of the economy. Many knew that that was likely to be a prelude to action, and we waited two and a half years to see what my right hon. Friend would do. What we have had today is an astonishing range of proposals. It will obviously take some time for us all to digest them. What does my right hon. Friend propose to do about some parts of the infrastructure, especially transport, which will have to underpin so much of his imaginative statement today?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is a distinguished former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and has done a great deal to promote the cause of British manufacturing industry. He is right to say that our three-year expansion on transport is necessary to improve an infrastructure that was left neglected for 20 years. He is right to say that the new announcement today that any real-term rises in fuel duties will go directly to a fund for roads and public transport is a step forward for transport. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is preparing new plans on transport so that we can improve the infrastructure of this country. We inherited an infrastructure that was out of date and neglected, and we are in the business of improving it.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: May I be the first to congratulate the Chancellor on his new appointment to run the Labour party general election campaign? I am sure that his colleagues on the Back Benches will feel that he has made a good start, but patients, parents and those who are disabled may feel rather differently when they discover at the end of all this that class sizes for the over-eights will continue to rise, that hospital waiting lists for out-patients will continue to

rise, and that those who heard that they were to have their incapacity benefit cut and will see that happen tonight will find that the Government are pressing ahead, despite the tax breaks for millionaires that the Chancellor has announced today.
Is it not a fact that, despite small amounts for health and education, the Chancellor is continuing to build his war chest? Why is he not using the substantial funds available to him to tackle rising waiting lists, cut class sizes for the over-eights and restore the benefit cuts for disabled people?
Can the Chancellor confirm something that appeared in his statement but may have been missed? Is the comprehensive spending review—the prudent decision to set spending over a three-year period—to be torn up a year early? Having announced that the CSR is coming forward a year, will the Chancellor confirm that the third year of the existing plans will remain, or whether he intends to increase spending as he approaches the general election?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I hope he does.

Mr. Taylor: We all hope that the right hon. Gentleman does.
Does the Chancellor realise that on the figures that he gave today for growth in the economy, the proportion of the national wealth devoted to education, which was 5 per cent. in his original plans, will have lost some £2 billion?
In relation to tax, does the Chancellor agree with the editorial in today's Financial Times, which accuses him of endless tinkering with the tax system, and of introducing "meddlesome tax privileges"? Surely recent experiences have taught us that simplification, not complication, is the answer.
In relation to the environment and the announcement that the planning system will be required to take competition into account, does that include retail? If so—to talk about the friends of the Chancellor and of the Prime Minister—is that the payback for sherry at No. 10 for the Wal-Mart executives?
The Labour Government claim to be for the many—not the few. However, is it not true that many millionaires will benefit from today's tax loopholes, while a few of the poorest disabled people will lose from tonight's legislative decisions? The Chancellor has amassed a war chest, as the figures will show when people examine them in detail. His announcements on education and health will do nothing to cut class sizes for the over-eights; they will do nothing to cut waiting lists for out-patients. They will not deliver what people voted for at the last general election. Is not the Chancellor taking his election job too seriously and his chancellorship too lightly?

Mr. Brown: I welcome the hon. Gentleman as the Treasury spokesman for the Liberal party. We shall be meeting on the joint consultative committees—we should leave a section of our meetings for education on basic facts in today's economy. The hon. Gentleman says that the Liberals would spend more on education. At the election, they promised £1. 8 billion a year—we are spending more than £7 billion extra a year. At the election, they said that they would spend £500 million on health—we are spending £7 billion extra a year. It is about time for the Liberals to admit that what we are doing is far beyond whatever they propose, or could deliver.
The hon. Gentleman should be absolutely clear about incapacity benefit and should not incite fears throughout the country. No person claiming incapacity benefit at the moment is worse off. It is completely mischievous of the hon. Gentleman to give any other impression.
In relation to the general position of the Liberal party on public spending, the hon. Gentleman now tells us that we should spend more. The weekend press was full of headlines that he would clamp down on public spending claims made by the Liberal party. He stated:
We always doubted that the Government would maintain its position"—
that is, being tough on public spending over three years. The hon. Gentleman continued:
The worry is that this was designed to allow a relaxation of policy to make headlines in advance of the election. 
Far from being a person who wants to spend more money, the hon. Gentleman poses, in the Financial Times, as someone who wants toughness and less spending. I gather that he proposes a pledge card for the Liberals at the next election. Pledge one will be to tell some people that they are increasing public spending, while pledge two will be to tell other people that they are cutting it. I look forward to that. Pledge three will be to raise taxes, and pledge four will be to tell other people that they are cutting taxes. I look forward to future debates with the Liberal party.

Mr. Giles Radice: The Select Committee on the Treasury will want to question my right hon. Friend on his important and detailed statement, especially on jobs, share ownership, child poverty and pensions. Does he agree that the key to flourishing enterprise and to high-quality public services is a stable and strong economy, with the low inflation, low unemployment, steady growth and healthy public finances that, currently, we so fortunately enjoy?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Treasury Select Committee; I look forward to meeting the Committee to discuss the details of my statement as well as other matters. I entirely agree with him. During the past 30 years, this country has lacked stability and steady growth. That requires us to move away from the stop/go of the past, and our policies are determined on that course. That is why we are tough in our fiscal discipline and why we are determined, with our new monetary arrangements, to meet our inflation target. The rewards are rising investment in our public services.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the Chancellor recall that the first thing he did on taking office was claim to discover that the target figure for safely sustainable growth was, at 2½ per cent., too high and, in the name of prudence, to reduce it to 2¼ per cent? He now seems to have found bogus reasons for putting it back to 2½ per cent. Is that not a cynical exercise in lowering expectations and then raising them again, so that he can ridiculously oversell the current modest recovery in the economy? Although he can say with relief that we missed a recession by a whisker, does he accept that for six months last winter there was no economic growth in this country, that manufacturing went into recession and that agriculture is in recession?
The Chancellor's new figure of 1¾ per cent. growth this year means we are being outperformed, not only by the United States of America, but by France, Germany and

Spain, despite his inheriting the fastest growing major economy in western Europe. When he rises to explain the reason he is now so proud of our underperformance relative to the performance of our competitors, compared with whom our productivity and competitiveness are falling, will he acknowledge that it is the result of his placing a burden of tax on business, on pensions, on savings, and on fuel which no number of gimmicky announcements of new tax breaks—which, when the details emerge, will yet again turn out to be little or nothing in practice—can correct? The Chancellor has set the country on a course of lower expectations for future economic growth and uses smoke and mirrors to present it as a triumph.

Mr. Brown: I know that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be seen to agree with me—at least, not in the House in Commons. He mentioned the first thing the Labour Government did, but the first thing we did was make the Bank of England independent. It is interesting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman supports that policy and has said so; it is only his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench who continue to oppose it. The reason we made the Bank independent was to tackle his central point, which is that the average annual growth of the economy over the previous 20 years had been less than 2 per cent.
It is to deal with the failure to achieve growth under the Conservative Government that we have introduced our measures. First, we must achieve stability, which I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman values. That is why we took tough action to prevent the economy that he bequeathed to us from getting out of control. Secondly, we have introduced measures to encourage investment in the economy. He will have noticed that, even though this year's rate of growth has been low, for the first time in this part of the economic cycle, investment in our economy has kept up and is currently running at 6 per cent.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions the productivity challenge, and I accept that challenge. However, when the Conservatives left office, this country was falling down the world productivity league; we are determined to reverse that fall. I hope that, just as he now supports our policies on the Bank of England, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will, in time, come to support our other policies to improve productivity in the economy.

Mr. Barry Jones: How will my right hon. Friend's statement on the climate change levy change for the better the position of the steel industry? He will know that my constituents from Shotton steelworks and I took a deputation of management and labour to see Treasury Ministers.
May I also tell my right hon. Friend of the constituent who visited my constituency surgery with his wife and child? He told me of his astonishment and pleasure at how the working families tax credit had given his family £28 a week more. If that is redistribution by stealth, may we please have more?

Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend draws attention to the working families tax credit, which is giving many thousands of people in this country up to £50 a week more—money that is necessary to lift them out of poverty and give them a decent weekly income. I wish the


Conservatives would end their opposition to the working families tax credit and the minimum wage, so that we in this country could enjoy a consensus on them.
My right hon. Friend also mentions the climate change levy, which, with others, he has raised before. I believe that the sector for which he puts the case will be pleased to learn that we have achieved the 80 per cent. discount and that there are lower main rates for the levy, equivalent to a 90 per cent. reduction in the levy rates published at Budget time. In addition, that sector can claim on the energy efficiency fund that we are creating and benefit from the new proposal for 100 per cent. capital allowances for moving to more energy efficient products and processes.
I believe that the welcome that will be given to our measures on this matter today will show that it is possible to build a consensus in this country, that we can make changes in the taxation regime to deal with the environmental commitments negotiated by the Deputy Prime Minister, and that we can do so in a way that is fair to all.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Does the Chancellor think that there is a possibility that those entering the country with an IT work permit may notice those who are leaving the country in the opposite direction because of IR35—or is the former policy intended to mask the effects of the latter?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman, who has a considerable reputation in the House, should not mislead people about the new measures on personal services companies. As he knows, we have listened to the consultations on this matter, and a few weeks ago we published new proposals. Those proposals have been generally welcomed by people who understand what we are trying to do.

Mr. Maude: Rubbish.

Mr. Brown: The only thing that I can say about the shadow Chancellor is that he wants to create a situation where, even when people may be earning thousands, or hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, they pay no national insurance on their earnings. We are taking the necessary action, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to make changes in these measures he must tell us now: is he opposing the payment of national insurance contributions by people who have personal services companies? Yes or no?

Mr. Martin O'Neill: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement? I was one of those who had misgivings about the climate change levy, and in large measure my right hon. Friend seems to have listened to what we were saying. Given the opportunities that are now available to companies and trade associations to enter into negotiations with our right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, there is no reason why most of them should not be able to arrive at reasonable settlements, in view of the reduction offered by the discount and the lower rate, the opportunities for combined heat and power, and the £150 million for energy efficiency investment, as well as the capital allowances.
We must congratulate my right hon. Friend because, although many of us criticised him, he listened; and I believe that most of us are relieved and almost happy.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful. My hon. Friend is Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and I have met him on that basis. Of course, he may be happier on Saturday when we attend the Scotland-England football match at Hampden together. He rightly points to the changes that have been made as a result of the consultation period, but I stress to him that we have managed to cut emissions by a greater amount than previously proposed in addition to halving the levy. I believe that most people throughout the country will welcome that.
Eight European countries have, or are about to have, a climate change levy or a similar measure. I believe that we must accept that that will happen, but I also believe that it can be a done in a fair and balanced way. We have put forward these measures in order to achieve that, and there is no revenue gain whatever to the Government from meeting those environmental commitments.

Mr. John MacGregor: Will the Chancellor make it clear that he will not now proceed with a pesticides tax, which would further devastate an already devastated agricultural industry?
While he is working that one out, will the Chancellor admit that, contrary to the impression that he tried to give earlier, he has substantially cut the road programme and other transport expenditures?
On the fuel duty escalator, would it not have been much better if the Chancellor had said that he would not increase fuel duties now at all, given that fuel duty is much higher in this country than in other European countries? If he does proceed with the fuel duty increase, will he make it clear that the expenditure hypothecated for roads and other transport programmes will not be offset by reductions in the transport programmes financed by public expenditure generally?

Mr. Brown: When the right hon. Gentleman makes these points, I suspect that he is really welcoming the fact that we are creating a ring-fenced fund for roads and public transport and wishes that his colleagues in the previous Government had done exactly what we are proposing. When I say that this is money for roads and public transport, I mean that it is additional money for roads and public transport.
Once Conservative Members have stopped their knee-jerk reaction of opposing everything recommended by the Government, I hope that they will accept that this is a reasonable way forward. It was, after all, the previous Government who introduced the escalator on fuel duty in 1993, where it remained until 1997. It is we who are reforming it, by putting in place new environmental measures that are best for the country.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Is the Chancellor aware of how welcome his statement on the climate change levy will be in the steel communities, in response to the delegations that he has received from companies, Members of Parliament and trade unions?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that his very ambitious proposals on employee share ownership will take us from passive share ownership to an active partnership stake in


many more of our firms? Will he ask his fellow Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, as well as members of employer organisations and trade unions, to build employee share ownership into their thinking, so that we have an active stakeholding economy in which the many have a stake in the firms of this country, not just the few?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who was one of the Members of Parliament in a delegation which made representations in our consultative period on the climate change levy. I believe that we have created a pattern in which it is possible to consult on such measures and to listen to what is being said by various sectors of British industry before a Budget. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the steel industry will benefit from the 80 per cent. discount, the lower main rates of levy, the trebling of Government assistance to business for energy efficiency measures and some of the exemptions. It is important to recognise again that these measures have no revenue benefit to the Exchequer; all the money will go back into business.
As for my hon. Friend's second point, our aim over the next few years is to double the number of companies with employee share schemes. I believe that the proposed package of measures to be introduced in April will show immediate results. I hope that trade unions and managers can get together to work out how they can move this forward.

Mr. David Davis: The Chancellor had some fun attacking the forecasts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). The right hon. Gentleman should perhaps be a little more careful. I remember when, as shadow Chancellor, he said after a Conservative Budget that it would lead to increases in unemployment month after month after month. In fact, those measures led to reductions in unemployment month after month after month until this Government came to power, when the right hon. Gentleman gained from the reduction.
The Chancellor's speech started with a resonant phrase. He said that his proposals were designed to promote enterprise and fairness, and nobody can disagree with that aim. So will he please explain how £30 billion of extra taxation on business helps enterprise, and how his £5 billion a year raid on pension funds helps fairness?

Mr. Brown: The fact is that we have cut corporation tax, which is falling from 33p to 30p. We have cut small business taxation from 23p to 20p. Conservative Members do not want to know, because they refused to make the corporation tax cuts that we have been prepared to make to encourage new investment. Instead of dismissing our changes to capital gains tax, the Conservative party should welcome them. We are making it possible for long-term investment in our economy to expand in the next few years, as is the case in other countries.
It is true that enterprise and fairness are the themes of this pre-Budget report. It is a pity that neither enterprise nor fairness is part of the Conservative party's policies.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is my right hon. Friend not surprised that Conservative Members are still

expressing their opposition to the windfall tax, which redressed some of the excessive profits made by the privatisations and rip-offs for which the previous Government were responsible? Has that not underlined the importance of the new deal and Labour's policy of getting people to work, the extension of which, as announced by my right hon. Friend today, is to stop paying people to be out of work and to get them back into work by regenerating the economy?

Mr. Brown: I agree. The only people who oppose the windfall tax are the Conservatives. People recognise that the windfall tax dealt with the excess profits of the utilities that followed the Conservative Government's botched privatisations. At the same time, it has made possible the creation of new job opportunities for the 500,000 people who are on the new deal. It is sad that the Conservatives want to abolish the new deal and that Front-Bench spokesmen say that it is a fraud. If the new deal had got just one or two young people back to work, it would have been a start. In fact, it has got 170,000 people back to work. It is time we had some support from the Conservative party.

Sir Peter Tapsell: If, as the Chancellor said in his statement, the underlying inflation rate is 2. 1 per cent., what was the justification for raising interest rates last week to nearly three times that figure?

Mr. Brown: The Monetary Policy Committee makes decisions—I thought that the Conservative Party understood this—18 months to two years ahead. Decisions do not have an immediate, day by day impact on inflation. Last week's decision will have an impact over the next year or two years. The MPC should be supported in what it is doing, as the alternative is a return to the boom and bust days of the Conservative Governments, and we are not prepared to let that happen.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I wholeheartedly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the announcement of free television licences for the over-75s. Will he examine, however, the economic situation in the north-east of England, possibly considering a Barnett formula mark 2? The region is not booming and has been depressed since losing major industries including coal, steel and shipbuilding. We are in recession, and another 1,000 job losses are in the pipeline.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has been, and continues to be, a strong advocate for the north-east economy. He is right to say that there have been huge changes as coal and shipbuilding have been affected by what has happened in the world economy. However, the Government are trying to ensure that resources go to the north-east, which is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the new deal. My hon. Friend will know that the minimum wage and the working families tax credit are helping thousands of people in the north-east.
Meanwhile, the new deal for communities announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is making a difference to some of the worst unemployment areas in the north-east. There are currently 50,000 vacancies in the region, twice as many as there were at the peak of the 1980s boom when the Conservatives were in office. We want to ensure that people who can fill the vacancies have opportunities to gain the skills that


they require. That is why we are introducing changes to the new deal today. The north-east will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the changes that I have announced.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Last week, the Chancellor told The Guardian that
we've always been clear that the tax burden had to rise".
Is that process now at an end?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman can quote what he likes, but I have said today that the tax burden is falling from 37. 4 per cent. to 37 per cent. to 36. 8 per cent. No doubt he will read out that quote in full at a later date, but that is what I have said.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Chancellor's statement will be welcomed by many people, particularly for the tax benefits that will encourage greater charitable giving. However, the most radical part of his statement may prove to be the hypothecation of taxation of cars and cigarettes, on which I congratulate my right hon. Friend. Is that the way in which taxation will move in future so that people may see that their taxes are used to improve the services that they expect?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and can say that that is the way in which taxation on petrol and cigarettes will go in future.

Sir Michael Spicer: Why did the Chancellor say at the beginning of his speech that productivity rates were rising when they are in fact falling?

Mr. Brown: I said that we had to increase productivity to the world's best. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah. "] There we have a Conservative party that presided for 20 years over an economy in which the average rate of growth was below 2 per cent. The Labour Government are making changes that will increase the rate of productivity growth in our country. Instead of opposing every measure to increase productivity, the Conservative party should support them.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and especially on the measures to eliminate child poverty. Has he considered investment in London transport? Did he read the City corporation's claim that it could find £2 billion to build crossrail? Will my right hon. Friend bind it to that commitment so that crossrail gets built this time?

Mr. Brown: Millions of pounds are being invested in London transport as a result of the measures that the Deputy Prime Minister proposes. Today's decision about the future of fuel duties means that more money will be invested in transport in London and in other parts of the country.

Mr. John Swinney: I thank the Chancellor for his refreshing honesty in admitting at last

that the fuel duty escalator is about raising taxes and not about the environment. Does he understand the anger that he will provoke in Scotland by continuing to apply a fuel duty escalator, and does he sympathise with the annoyance that there will be because the money that has been collected will not be used for new investment in our public services in Scotland? It was vital for such investment to be announced in the pre-Budget report.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. It is the Scottish National party's plans that would increase taxes in Scotland. It fought an election campaign on increasing the rate of tax. Taxes are falling through the Government's actions; taxes would have risen under Scottish National party policies. The party's failure to promote its policy successfully is one of the reasons for the Labour Administration in the Scottish Parliament.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, moneys will go on road and public transport in the whole of the United Kingdom, which includes Scotland and will continue to do so.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I offer my thanks and compliments to my right hon. Friend for his positive observations on the give-as-you-earn scheme. That scheme has enabled many non-governmental organisations and voluntary organisations to fund worthwhile projects for the poor in this country and in the third world. Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider raising the amount of money that an employee can pay over a year through the scheme?
I have some reservations about unemployed people having to attend agency centres more frequently. If such a development occurs, it must be handled with considerable compassion. The overwhelming majority of unemployed people in my constituency are desperately anxious to find work.

Mr. Brown: I can confirm that the payroll giving scheme will be more generous and give greater help to charities, especially those that receive money from employees. I want to provide maximum help to third world charities, which my hon. Friend mentioned. We are removing a series of restrictions that prevented charities from getting the money that they needed and that also made the system difficult to understand. The new system is simplified and will enable more money to go to charities.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I said that Lord Grabiner QC will examine methods of ensuring that action is taken against the informal economy. Only those who are suspected of being part of the informal economy may be required to report every day.

Mr. William Cash: Would the Chancellor read the front page headline of the Staffordshire Newsletter, which states, "Our schools betrayed"? There is a photograph of the Prime Minister below the headline. Why are all the public services—including the health, local government, social and education services—in Staffordshire in crisis? Will he explain that to my constituents, the House, and perhaps also to Rodney Bickerstaffe, Bill Morris and John Edmonds? Will he also explain the connection between the 3 per cent. deficit—


to which he referred earlier—and the Maastricht treaty, and why the people of this country do not get the services that they believe they should receive?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is now posing as a champion of public expenditure—which will sit strangely with the views that he expressed during the last Parliament. This Labour Government have put £20 billion extra into education. Without this Government, that £20 billion would not have gone to education and the £19 billion extra would not have gone to health. We have just heard this afternoon from the shadow Chancellor that he opposed putting that £40 billion in—

Mr. Maude: rose—

Mr. Brown: Oh yes—

Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Chancellor has deliberately and absolutely misrepresented what I said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) will raise his point of order after the statements.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I repeat: the shadow Chancellor opposed putting £40 billion into health and education. He and his colleagues will not be allowed to forget that. They called that expenditure reckless and wasteful. They said that we would have to cut back and that we could not afford it. That was the position of the Conservative party, and that is what the Conservatives are all about.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not surprising that Conservative Members have not uttered a single word this afternoon about child poverty? They threw children into poverty and we are correcting that situation as quickly as possible. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must deal with the problem facing unemployed single mothers who cannot find child care during the hours of work offered by prospective employers? What are the

Government doing for responsible mothers who cannot work at present for perfectly sensible reasons involving child care?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been a champion of action against child poverty for many years. As I have said, our proposed measures will take nearly 1 million children out of poverty. I recognise that we must do more and that child care is important for lone parents who are looking for work or who wish to attend college courses. Through the 37,000 child care places that will be available in colleges, we are determined to increase the ability of lone parents to gain the college qualifications they need.
We want to increase the number of child carers, and there is money available for that. We want to increase the accessibility of child care, and there is money available to expand the number of child care places. Under the child care element of the working families tax credit, there will be more money to help families pay for child care.

Mr. John Townend: I ask this question as the chairman of a small and medium-sized enterprise. For companies such as mine, the savings on corporation tax are peanuts compared with the burdens that have been imposed on us in the past few years. I refer to the cost of derv for delivery vans, the cost of petrol for representatives' cars, the working time directive, the 48-hour week, paternity rights, the part-time directive, the social chapter, and the administrative costs associated with the working families tax credit, the child tax credit, the disabled tax credit and student loans. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that such measures increase competitiveness and job creation or reduce them?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman seems to oppose any improvement in maternity rights and in other measures designed to help working people in this country. He should congratulate the Government on creating the stability that is necessary for small and other businesses to move forward. That certainly did not happen under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.

Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Points of order are not taken until after statements. I shall take the right hon. Gentleman's point of order after the statements.

Benefits Uprating

5 pm

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I should like to make a short statement on the annual uprating of benefits. I also want to set out how we are delivering a better deal for pensioners.
First, on uprating, I can confirm that most national insurance benefits will rise by the retail prices index, which is 1. 1 per cent. That means that, to protect the basic state pension from inflation, we shall increase it in line with prices to £67. 50. For couples, that rises to £107. 90. Most income-related benefits will rise by the Rossi index—1. 6 per cent.—in the normal way. I shall place details of the uprating in the Vote Office, and I shall arrange for the figures to be published in the Official Report shortly, in the usual way.
Today, we have already announced significant help for children. I now want to set out the additional help that we are giving to pensioners. The help will mean that our oldest, poorest pensioners will be more than £500 a year better off since we came to power. That is real help from this Government for those in real need. We are determined to tackle pensioner poverty, because retirement should be a time in life to look forward to. For many it is, but for too many it is not. We are determined to help every pensioner to have a secure and fulfilling retirement.
However, we inherited two problems. The first is a problem for the future. If we had done nothing, one in three people could have depended on means-tested benefits in retirement. That was the legacy we faced, which no Government could tolerate. So, we are tackling that with our reforms for the long term. We are reforming the state earnings-related pension scheme—SERPS—with the state second pension, and we are introducing the new stakeholder pension schemes. Because of our proposals, people can look forward to a decent income in retirement after a lifetime of hard work.
However, the second problem that we inherited is immediate, and it needs to be confronted now. Since 1979. pensioner incomes as a whole have increased, but the gap between the better-off pensioners and the poor widened dramatically. The incomes of the 2 million better-off pensioners rose by two thirds, but the 2 million poorest pensioners missed out, their incomes rising by only a third.
Too many pensioners have spent the past 20 years living in poverty, afraid to turn on their heating, struggling to make ends meet and sometimes living in fear and isolation. That cannot be right, which is why we are acting now by delivering a fair deal for pensioners with more cash help for the poorest, help with fuel bills and action to tackle isolation.
Our priority is to direct help to those hardest hit over the past 20 years, those who missed out in the rising national prosperity. That is why we have introduced the minimum income guarantee, which will provide extra help for those who need it most, and that is why we are increasing the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings from next April. Therefore, it will be worth £78. 45 for single pensioners and £121. 95 for couples. For single pensioners aged between 75 and 79 that rises to £80. 85, and to £125. 35 for couples. For those over 80 that increases to £86. 05 and to £131. 05.
The universal basic state pension remains the foundation of pension provision in this country. However, Governments over the past 50 years have known that the basic state pension would not do enough on its own. That is why the graduated pension scheme was introduced in 1961 and why SERPS was introduced in 1978. That is why we are introducing radical reforms for the future, and it is also why we have already introduced the minimum income guarantee, which gives direct cash help to the poorest now and helps those who would otherwise have to live on the basic state pension with no income from a funded pension to top it up.
An across-the-board increase in the basic state pension would not begin to tackle the pensioner poverty that we inherited. The poorest would lose their benefit pound for pound, and they would be no better off as a result. That is why our approach—providing extra help for the poorest pensioners—is not only the right thing to do; it is the only fair thing to do, and it is the only way seriously to tackle pensioner poverty today. So, that is why I can announce today that we shall increase the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings each and every year during this Parliament.
We are helping 1. 5 million of our poorest pensioner households more than ever before, because we are determined to make sure that retirement is a time to look forward to, and of course for most pensioners it is. However, it can be difficult for pensioners on fixed incomes to meet the cost of one-off annual bills. Older pensioners can find that particularly hard, since they are more likely to be living on low incomes. Nearly half of pensioners over 75 are among the poorest third in relation to incomes.
To solve that problem and to address the particular needs of older pensioners, the Chancellor today announced free television licences for pensioners aged 75 and over. That will provide help for pensioners who need extra help after a lifetime of hard work and caring. It will help 3 million households from next autumn and will be worth up to £101. The measure will help to prevent isolation and it will help older pensioners to keep in touch and to stay informed. We are helping to make sure that older, poorer pensioners have access to something that so many of us take for granted. Details of how we shall do that will be published shortly.
We are helping the poorest through the minimum income guarantee and we are helping the oldest with free TV licences. It is those pensioners who have most to gain through the winter fuel payments. This year, around 10 million pensioners in about 7. 5 million households will get £100, paid, for the first time, before Christmas. The first of this year's winter fuel payments were sent out yesterday.
Today we can go further. I can confirm that the £100 winter fuel payment will be paid each and every year from now on. That is on top of cutting VAT on fuel and on top of the home energy efficiency scheme, which will help the poorest with up to £2,000 to fit central heating from next year. All those measures have been taken by this Government. We are delivering lower fuel bills and providing pensioners with direct help to pay for them.
We always knew that the retail prices index would be low in September. We not only predicted it, we pre-empted it with all the additional help announced


today: the increase in the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings for the rest of this Parliament; free television licences for pensioners over 75, and the fivefold increase in winter fuel payments paid every year from now on.
We have a lot more to do, but we have made a good start on preventing pensioner poverty in the future by reforming the system for the long term, and on tackling pensioner poverty now by delivering for today's pensioners an increased minimum income guarantee, winter fuel payments and free television licences.
We are building a better quality of life for all our pensioners by investing more in the national health service, tackling crime and taking two thirds of pensioners out of tax altogether. We are spending £4 billion on pensioners as a whole while, at the same time, we are getting the greatest help to those pensioners in the greatest need. That is all new help; it is all from this Government and it all delivers a better deal for pensioners. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr. David Willetts: I begin by welcoming one of the few new announcements that we have had today. The Chancellor referred to the measure, but it was strangely missing from the Secretary of State's statement. I refer, of course, to the proposed new regime for unemployed benefit claimants who, we are told, will be required to sign on daily.
I recognised that policy announcement, and I think that it may be the first victory for the common-sense revolution. Only three weeks ago, we said:
If unemployment claimants look as if they are working and claiming, or not taking jobsearch seriously, they will have to sign on at their Jobcentre on a daily basis. 
We therefore welcome the announcement. It is a pity that the Minister of State denounced that at the time as right-wing madness, but three weeks is a long time in politics. If the Secretary of State wants any advice on how to deliver that policy, we are, of course, willing to oblige.
Most of what the Secretary of State said was repeats. We had the minimum income guarantee for pensioners that we had heard about before. We had the winter fuel scheme, which is also a repeat. Stakeholder pensions are a repeat. The second state pension is a repeat. The home energy efficiency scheme is a repeat. In fact, it is no wonder that the TV licence is the centrepiece of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, because all he is showing is repeats.
What was conspicuous about the right hon. Gentleman's statement was the complete absence of a strategy for dealing with pensioner poverty. He began his statement by saying that if things had carried on, one in three pensioners would have been dependent on means-tested benefits. He then announced an increase in the basic pension of 1. 1 per cent. and—I should be grateful for his confirmation of this figure—an increase in the minimum income guarantee, which he does not like to call a means test although it is one, of 4. 9 per cent.
We should like to hear from the Secretary of State how many more pensioners he estimates will be brought within means-tested benefits as a result of the statement today. He cannot say in the same statement that he is trying to address the problem of more pensioners being dependent on means-tested benefits, and promptly announce a further increase in means-testing for pensioners.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember the Chancellor saying to the Labour party conference when he was in opposition:
I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the Welfare State has never been achieved: the end of the means test for our elderly people"?
What a contrast between what he said then and the statement today.
Elderly people will not let the Secretary of State off the hook with a 75p increase in the basic pension, when in his Department's expenditure plans published only in March, he assumed a 1. 3 per cent. increase in the basic pension—not the 1. 1 per cent. announced today, but a £90 million saving from pensioners, which he has simply pocketed.
Meanwhile, the right hon. Gentleman is hitting pensioners with a range of measures that take money away from those who had the prudence to save—the £5 billion a year attack on pension funds through advance corporation tax; the abolition of dividend tax credits which hit 300,000 pensioners who are not even within the range of income tax; the scrapping of the married couples allowance, with no replacement for the pensioners who will find in future that their age allowance has been taken away from them, at a cost of £500 in tax a year.
The Government are taking from prudent pensioners who saved, in order to finance a further increase in means-testing. It is the wrong way to go.
May I also ask the Secretary of State about his policy on benefits and assistance for families? For the past year, he has fought to get through the House a measure, the working families tax credit, for which the central argument was that it was important for benefits to be delivered through the tax system. Has he any evidence whatever that paying a benefit of given value through the tax system rather than the benefits system has any effect on incentives or behaviour?
Perhaps the penny has dropped for the Chancellor. He announced today that a year after the working families tax credit comes in, he will promptly extract from the tax credit all the payments in respect of children, and convert them back into a benefit to be paid, usually, to the mother. After one year of the tax credit being paid through the tax system, a significant chunk of it will return to the benefits system. I should be interested to hear from the Secretary of State how he can defend that as a consistent and coherent strategy for dealing with incentives for families.
Finally, as he hears the Chancellor arguing the case for lower marginal rates for entrepreneurs, does the Secretary of State have a pang of guilt about the fact that later today he will impose a 73 per cent. marginal rate of tax on people in receipt of incapacity benefit, simply because they had the prudence to save?

Mr. Darling: On the last point, I am particularly pleased that we will increase the amount of money that we give to young severely disabled people by £26 a week. The Conservative party did nothing about that for the 18 years that it was in power.
The hon. Gentleman asks about our strategy. Let me remind him of the strategy. He complains that some of what I say is repeated, but good stories are worth repetition. Thanks to Conservative policies, one in three people were heading towards retirement on means-tested benefits because they were getting so little through the pension system that we inherited.
The changes that we are making—reforming SERPS and increasing the amount of money that lower paid workers get—will mean that most people, after working for a lifetime, will be able to retire above the means-tested level. Most people would consider that a strategy worthy of support.
Let me also set out what we are doing for today's pensioners, about which the hon. Gentleman also complains. As is clear from what the shadow Chancellor said last year, the Conservative party opposes all the additional expenditure that the Government have put in place since taking office. We are facing up to the fact that, during the past 20 years, more than 2 million pensioners lost out as a result of the Conservative party's policies.
The hon. Gentleman has told us time and again that he is against the minimum income guarantee. That means that the 2 million pensioners now receiving the minimum income guarantee would be £8 a week worse off as a result of Conservative party policy. He complains that we are bringing more people into the minimum income guarantee, and, yes, 25,000 to 30,000 people will come into the minimum income guarantee, but the point is that they will be getting more money as a result. I am willing to stand at the Dispatch Box again and again to defend giving more money to the poorest pensioners in Britain—those who lost out under the Tory Government.
As the shadow Chancellor has made clear, the Conservative party is against the winter fuel payment, £100 for every pensioner household, which benefits the poorest pensioners most. The hon. Gentleman has not told us what he thinks about free television licences for 75-year-olds. Presumably, if all Government expenditure is reckless, he must be against that as well.
The point is that, unlike the previous Government, we are determined to tackle pensioner poverty. We are not prepared to put up with a situation where people who have worked hard all their lives and have spent a lifetime caring for people end up with so little money that they are frightened to turn up their heating and do not know whether they can make ends meet. I am more than happy to go into the next election defending what we have done for today's pensioners, as well as the reforms that we are making for tomorrow.

Mr. Frank Field: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today, during which he rightly condemned the Conservative party for allowing one in three pensioners to be dependent on means-tested assistance, but what will that proportion be when our programme for pension reform is fully implemented?

Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend knows that the proportion of people on means-tested benefits during the course of their retirement will fall. It will take some time for our pension proposals to take place, because we are talking about saving over the next 30, 40 and 50 years. [Interruption.] It must have occurred even to Conservative Members that it takes some considerable time to build up a pension. They may have managed to go a long way towards running down pensions in the 20 years that they were in power, but we have put in place reforms to the pension system which will mean that those who have worked hard throughout their lives will be able to retire on a pension above income support levels.
The Conservative party is still committed to a policy of wholesale privatisation of the pension system—ideological nonsense. We are ensuring that we help today's pensioners as well as pensioners in the future.

Mr. Steve Webb: I commiserate with the Secretary of State for having to listen to the Chancellor give away the goodies on television licences and then having the humiliation of announcing a pathetic 75p increase in the state pension. Can he confirm that that is the lowest ever state pension relative to the means test? Can he also confirm that, if council taxes for pensioners rise by £40 next April, as they did last April, that will take up the whole of the pensions rise, leaving pensioners with nothing for any other price increase next year? What did the Secretary of State mean when he said that most national insurance benefits will rise by 1. 1 per cent.? Will any rise be less than 1. 1 per cent.? Can he confirm that he plans to take action on the disincentive to save in the means-tested benefits system? So far he has told us that he will be pushing more pensioners on to means-tested benefits and penalising those who have saved. Is he content to be the Secretary of State who has brought Britain the lowest ever pension figure relative to the means test?

Mr. Darling: Even for the Liberals, that takes the biscuit. Let me make one or two things clear to the hon. Gentleman. He asked about the uprating of benefits. No benefits will go up by less than the Rossi index or the RPI. He may be interested to know—I am grateful to him for allowing me the opportunity to point this out—that the amount of money paid under the minimum income guarantee goes up by considerably more than an inflationary increase, and the child benefits and child premiums go up considerably more than they would have done under inflation, both of which measures I would have hoped the Liberals would have supported.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned pensions. I make no bones about the fact that the Government's strategy is primarily geared to helping those pensioners who need help most—those who lost out over the past 20 years. An across-the-board increase, whether prices or earnings related, would not help the pensioners on the lowest incomes because they would lose it pound for pound. That is why we have introduced the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel payment and free television licences for the poorer pensioners aged over 75, most of whom live in some of the poorest households. Had pensions been earnings linked this year, they would have gone up by slightly more than £3 a week, but because of what the Government have done most pensioners will receive slightly more than £4 a week. They have done better as a result of the policies that we have put in place. His proposals, which he published about two months ago, involved abolishing the state earnings-related pension scheme and would have ensured that the state second pension was not put in place. They would have completely undermined the pensions programme. That sounds like a particularly mad proposal, even for the Liberals.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Can he confirm that our manifesto committed us, particularly with regard to pensioners, to considering the restoration of the link


with earnings as and when we could afford it? His announcement that the minimum income guarantee each year will be increased in line not only with prices, but with earnings, is a start. All the pensioner households in my constituency will certainly welcome the announcement of free television licences for over-75s.

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Most Labour Members are determined to do as much as we possibly can for pensioners, particularly those who lost out in the Tory years. We have linked the minimum income guarantee to earnings. That will help the poorest pensioners—all of us have come across them in our constituencies—who did particularly badly in the Tory years. I am sure that the free television licence will benefit older pensioners, many of whom live in households whose incomes are particularly low, feel isolated and cannot keep in touch. They find meeting the cost of a one-off bill, such as that for the television licence, a disproportionately heavy burden to bear. We are making progress because we are determined that all pensioners should share in this country's rising prosperity, but we have a clear obligation to tackle pensioner poverty, which the Conservative party did nothing about during the 20 years in which it had the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Edward Leigh: How does the relatively modest increase of 1. 1 per cent. in universal benefits, such as the basic state pension, compare with the relatively generous increase of 4. 9 per cent. in means-tested benefits, such as the minimum pension guarantee? Will that make it more or less likely that Mr. and Mrs. Prudence will make provision and save for their old age?

Mr. Darling: Most people are making provision not only for their old age, but for other things. As the Chancellor made clear in his pre-Budget statement, we want to encourage that. I find it interesting that the Conservatives increased pensions and other benefits in line with prices for 18 years. It is most curious that, after two years in opposition, they seem to be hinting that they would have a different policy today. I doubt it.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: I represent more than 30,000 pensioners. Having met their representatives yesterday, I can tell my right hon. Friend that they welcome their £100 winter fuel payments for this year, next year and the year after, but what more can the Government do to ensure that pensioners who are entitled to do so receive benefit so that they can take advantage of the minimum pension guarantee?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We think that about 500,000 pensioners who ought to be receiving benefits to which they are entitled are not claiming them. Three weeks ago I published research highlighting the scale of the problem and I hope to announce, in the not too distant future, proposals showing the Government's determination to ensure that people entitled to help—through the minimum income guarantee or other benefits—receive it.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has made such a point, because the minimum income guarantee is

based on the fact that people claim that to which they are entitled. Does he therefore accept that the many people who are eligible for benefits but are not claiming them will be left with nothing more than a 75p increase as a result of his statement?
The pilot studies of take-up seem to have fizzled out. It is urgent that the Secretary of State takes action to remedy the problem before he can be safe in the assumption that he is tackling pensioner poverty. The Government have said that they are looking at capital thresholds for means-tested benefits. Increasing such thresholds would be an easy way of addressing the problem.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman raises several points. On the latter, the Government have made it clear that we are concerned about capital limits. We want to encourage people to save, and they ought to be rewarded for doing so.
On take-up, the pilot projects have not fizzled out. They are being assessed and, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson), we hope to announce the conclusion of them before announcing further steps to ensure that pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee and other benefits receive them.
Yes, the basic state pension's value is being maintained, but the minimum income guarantee goes to those poorest pensioners who lost out. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would agree that our concern must be particularly for pensioners who have received the least over the past few years. The winter fuel payment—quite significant help—will be going to every eligible pensioner household in the next few weeks. In addition, of course, from next year, there will be free television licences for over-75s. I remind the hon. Gentleman, too, that we took 200,000 pensioners who were paying tax out of such a bracket. All that adds up to valuable support for pensioners who, as I say, were neglected for far too long under the Conservatives.

Mr. Paul Flynn: As one of the 100 Members of Parliament who have long campaigned for the restoration of the link between pensions and earnings, may I congratulate the Government on giving benefits to pensioners that are at least equivalent to—and possibly higher than—the amount that they would have received had the link been restored? None the less, there is a serious problem, and the campaign to restore the link must go on.
At least 500,000 pensioners do not claim the minimum income guarantee, although they are the poorest pensioners. The reason is that they have worked all their lives, never claimed any benefit, made contributions at the rate of inflation for 45 years or so and will not demean themselves by filling out forms and claiming a hand-out. They see the basic state pension as a right. There is therefore a great difference between increasing it and giving more hand-outs.
Although the Government are right to give prime attention to helping the poorest pensioners, the Minister and I were elected on a pledge that all pensioners would share fairly in the growing prosperity of the nation.
We must address the fact that a group of the poorest pensioners are losing out before we return to the country to ask for their support.

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right that everyone on the Labour Benches was elected on a pledge to ensure that pensioners shared fairly in the country's rising prosperity. We are delivering on that. I think that my hon. Friend would accept that we are right to concentrate the additional money that we are making available—some £4 billion—on the poorest pensioners who have lost out over the past 20 years. An across-the-board increase does not help the poorest pensioners, because they lose any such increase pound for pound. Many at the top end of the scale would not of course notice the difference in their weekly income.
I do not regard claiming an entitlement from the state as in any way demeaning. We must ensure that we make it far easier for people who are entitled to claim something from the state to do so. I readily agree that the Benefits Agency and the Department of Social Security have some way to go in doing that. However, having given people a right under the minimum guarantee, I am determined to ensure, as my hon. Friend would agree, that every single pensioner who is entitled to receive MIG and other benefits does so. The steps that we shall be announcing in the not too distant future will ensure that that occurs.

Mr. Simon Burns: Undoubtedly, pensioners will welcome the statement about the television licence and the help with winter fuel bills. However, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his other comments will sound hollow to them, especially after next April, bearing in mind what they said when the retail prices index figures for September were announced and they discovered that their increase would be only 75p a week, despite the fact that they will face additional council tax bills and higher retail prices? Pensioners will be confused by the idea that a Cabinet Minister can proclaim a 1. 1 per cent. increase as such a good deal, because they know that his pay has increased by more than double that rate.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is the first Conservative—and, for all I know, the only Conservative—to welcome the introduction of free television licences and the help with winter fuel bills. I am glad that he has done so, although it will no doubt occur to him that there is something contradictory in welcoming those while denouncing our public expenditure plans—[Interruption.] Is he saying that he does not denounce our plans? A rebel already!
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman cannot both criticise the increases that I have announced today, and back the shadow Social Security spokesman, who is pledged to slash social security spending. As nearly half social security spending goes on pensions, if the Conservatives really want to slash that spending, they will have to tell us which pensioners will lose out and what benefits will go.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: I am still a few years away from my own entitlement to the free television licence for those over 75, but may I say how enormously welcome it will be to thousands of my constituents. Is it

not increasingly clear that the Conservatives would snatch that free television licence from thousands—no, millions—of pensioners?

Mr. Darling: I said that retirement should be a life to look forward to, and my hon. Friend has a long time to look forward to it. He is right; the Conservatives, because of their opposition to our public expenditure plans, would remove the winter fuel payments. They are also against the minimum income guarantee, so their policy would cost the poorest pensioners about £8 a week—and they would deny the funding for the free television licences. They are therefore in no position to say that if they were in power things would be better. People will look back at what they did over the past 20 years; the Conservatives are the reason why there is so much pensioner poverty today.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Pensioners in Northern Ireland will welcome the £100 winter fuel payment, and no doubt those over 75 will welcome the free television licence. However, partly because of the high unemployment that we have had, and also because of the lack of opportunity to invest in private pensions, they are among the poorest pensioners in the United Kingdom, and there will be disappointment at the bottom end of the income scale. Can the Secretary of State assure me that every effort will be made to ensure that those in Northern Ireland who qualify for the minimum income guarantee will be encouraged to apply for the benefits to which they are entitled?

Mr. Darling: I am sure that people in Northern Ireland will welcome the minimum income guarantee in particular. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that many pensioners there did very badly during the 18 years that the Tories were in power, and those people will look to the minimum income guarantee to protect them. As for the take-up campaign, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, social security in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to take appropriate action there as well.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. However, will he confirm that the Government's objective is to reduce the proportion of state expenditure that goes on pensions from 60 to 40 per cent. over the next 50 years? Does he not understand that the refusal to uprate the basic state pension in line with earnings has created much ill feeling among many pensioners organisations, and that his argument that to do so would lead to extensive clawback is a self-fulfilling prophecy? If he altered the rules on clawback of other benefits, the benefit that pensioners would derive from an increase in the state pension in line with earnings, rather than an inadequate 75p increase, would do much to eliminate pensioner poverty. Above all, it would guarantee an adequate level of state pension for the future, which his current system does not do. All it does is create an expensive minimum income guarantee, which is costly to administer. A basic non-means-tested rise would be much cheaper to administer.

Mr. Darling: Let me deal first with the Government's long-term plans, which are to encourage moderate and


higher earners to get funded pensions, because we believe that they will then be far better off. History shows that that is the case. We will spend some £10 billion, despite the changes that we are making, but our policy is clear—we want as many people as possible who can get funded pensions to get them. Alongside that, through the reforms we are making to the state earnings-related pension, with the state second pension, we are ensuring that those on low earnings—less than £9,000 a year—double the amount of pension they will get. I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes that.
My hon. Friend also asked about the earnings link. Restoring the earnings link would, by 2020, cost some £18 billion. That would have to be funded, so we have to ask whether that is the best way to help pensioners. I believe that the best way to help pensioners is to continue the policies that I have announced today and ensure that we give most help to those pensioners who have lost out—today's pensioners who have done so badly over the past 20 years—and for the future, to encourage future pensioners who can save to do so. For those future pensioners now on moderate or low earnings, we will give additional state help.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The Red Book published in March at the time of the Budget predicted that social security spending would increase dramatically in every successive year up to 2002. Is that forecast still valid?

Mr. Darling: Social security spending is rising at well under half the rate that it rose under the Conservatives. That is because we have public expenditure under control, and we are not spending money on economic waste because of high unemployment. We are spending far more money on those people who should be supported—those who lost out under the Conservative party during its 18 years in office.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I am reassured that my right hon. Friend wishes to reduce the proportion of pensioners reliant on means-tested benefits. As a measure of the success of the Government's policies, will he introduce targets for the reduction in the number of pensioners living below the poverty line and the number reliant on means-tested benefits?

Mr. Darling: In case my hon. Friend has not had the opportunity to read the report we published in September, which set out the Government's strategy for combating poverty and the causes of poverty and promoting opportunity for people, I can tell her that it sets out targets for pensioners and the rest of the age range. If she has not read it, I strongly commend what I believe to be an excellent document.

Mr. Paul Burstow: Given that the oldest pensioners tend to be the poorest pensioners and that the Government intend to target the television licence fee concession on the basis of age, why has not the Secretary of State taken the opportunity of this statement to announce a long-overdue increase in the age addition for the over-80s, which has not been increased from 25p since 1971?

Mr. Darling: I should have thought that a £100 television licence was quite an increase from the

25p the hon. Gentleman mentions. I think that he would agree that we have done much more to help older, poorer pensioners than the proposals made by his party's spokesman would achieve, which would have been paid for by abolishing SERPS and would have undermined today's pension industry—something that I would have thought would cause concern to most reasonable people.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the policies he has adopted to try to help pensioners. Will he continue to try to explain to the British people—and, as seems necessary, to the British Parliament—that pensioners are not a homogenous group of poor people? Some pensioners are rich, some are in the middle and some are poor. The fact that my right hon. Friend is pursuing a variety of policies means that we can target help on pensioners who need it, without wasting money on those who do not.

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. Too often, people assume that all pensioners are the same. In the past 20 years, the income of pensioners as a whole has risen by more than that of any other sector of society. The problem is that, although the income of the 2 million better-off pensioners went up by two thirds, the income of the 2 million at the other end of the scale went up by less than a third, in some cases.
The Government have to devise a pension strategy that meets the needs of all pensioners and takes pensioners as we find them today. That is why we have introduced the minimum income guarantee for the poorest pensioners. The winter fuel payment benefits all pensioners, but disproportionately benefits those on lower incomes. In addition, the free television licence will benefit the older, poorer pensioners.
The changes that we have made to take 200,000 pensioners out of tax will benefit those who are better off. The Government's pensions strategy is therefore designed to deal with the needs of today's pensioners, no matter who or where they are.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I commiserate with the Secretary of State on having only one new announcement to make at the Dispatch Box today. Clearly, his statement that pensions will rise only by a measly 75p this year is very unpopular with Labour Back Bench Members.
I welcome the Chancellor's announcement of free television licences for pensioners over 75, as will Sir Denis and Lady Thatcher, who will be beneficiaries of the proposals. However, I remind the Secretary of State of what my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said about the Government's figure for the rise in pensions. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a rise of 1. 3 per cent., but does he accept that the true rise, as my hon. Friend said, will be of only 1. 1 per cent., and that £90 million will have been taken out of the mouths of pensioners?

Mr. Darling: Talking of Lady Thatcher—which we sometimes do—I seem to remember that she was head of a Government who, some years ago, took concessionary television licences away from an awful lot of pensioners. I suspect that those pensioners will remember that. They will not be consoled by the fact that there are now two


Conservatives prepared to welcome the Government's initiative in providing free television licences for all 75-year-olds.
However, the hon. Lady will have to have a word with the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). At the Tory party conference, he pledged that a Tory Government would slash social security spending. [Interruption.] No wonder she is pointing at him. Her welcome for the steps that we are taking, and his policy pledges, are totally inconsistent.

Mr. John Bercow: How does the Secretary of State justify the fact that, by the year 2001, an estimated 300,000 taxpayers, including 90,000 sole earners, will have to pay a marginal tax rate of 46 per cent. because of the tapering of the new child care element of the working families tax credit? Is the right hon. Gentleman proud that he intends to plunder the pockets of the people in that way?

Mr. Darling: I am very proud of the fact that this Labour Government introduced the working families tax credit. What is more, I am proud too that the Government reduced the marginal rates of tax effectively being paid by people who, when they went into work, found themselves worse off because of the Tory benefit rules.
I shall also be very happy to go into the next election pointing out that Conservative Members have pledged to get rid of the working families tax credit. That will mean a huge tax increase for the many people who have gained under this Labour Government.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I welcome the announcement of free television licences for pensioners aged 75 and over, although I should be happy to explain sometime to the Secretary of State how licences could be done away with for every age group.
I congratulate the Secretary of State too on the way in which he very carefully did not say that every pensioner household would get the minimum income guarantee, as the House was told last year. Will he say how many million pensioner households on lower incomes will not get that guarantee, and whether he intends to raise the capital limits? Also, will he say how it can be fair that a 64-year-old man who spends £8,000 on a car before he retires will get the extra increase and the minimum guarantee, whereas the guy who saves his money will not? Surely that is not equitable among pensioners.

Mr. Darling: The Tory edifice is crumbling. The hon. Gentleman is the third Tory in a row to oppose the Conservative Front-Bench line on spending. He wants even more free television licences. He cannot have it both ways. The Conservative party opposes our public expenditure plans—those plans that are introducing the minimum income guarantee, free television licences, winter fuel payments and all the other help that is going to pensioners. For the avoidance of doubt, the minimum income guarantee goes to those pensioners who qualify for it. That is as plain as a pikestaff—even he should be able to see that.
At the end of the day, Opposition Members have to face up to the fact that for 18 years they did nothing for the poorest pensioners, who lost out as a result. It is this Government who are helping the poorest pensioners through the minimum income guarantee, winter fuel payments and free television licences. Britain's poorest and oldest pensioners will be £500 a year better off as a result of this Labour Government.

Mr. Eric Pickles: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the right hon. Gentleman said that he was particularly proud of giving additional money to young disabled people. Is that pride tinged with a little shame that the money to pay for that is being taken away from older disabled people on slightly above the minimum income?

Mr. Darling: No, it is not. While Tory Back Benchers are willing to welcome free television licences for the over-75s, we have had not one word about it from those on the Front Bench. We can take it that the reason that Front-Bench Conservatives are saying nothing is that that is something else that would be cut under any future Conservative Government.
As for disability, I repeat that we are giving more money to the young severely disabled. We are giving nearly £40 a week more to three and four-year-olds who have difficulty in moving. In addition, we are spending more on the disabled person's tax credit, on the disability income guarantee, and on providing pensions for disabled people with broken work records and for carers, all of which is opposed by the Tory party, which shows yet again that the Tories' opposition to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is opportunism pure and simple.
The Government have an excellent record. We are helping people who are disabled, helping pensioners, helping people get back into work and tackling poverty—something that the Tory party never did and never would do.

Points of Order

Mr. Phil Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For many Back Benchers, particularly those who are relatively new to the House, once a statement is read it is important to be able to peruse a copy in detail. When I went to the Vote Office straight after the Chancellor's statement, it was not available. I was told that it would not be until it appeared in Hansard tomorrow morning. Do you not feel that that is unacceptable? Something that is read into the record of the proceedings of the House should immediately be available for us to interpret.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Making statements available is a matter for Ministers. Therefore, I hope that they will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has been seriously misled this afternoon—inadvertently, I am sure—by the Chancellor, who said that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor was opposed to the £40 billion more for health and education. I was sitting by my right hon. Friend and I heard him say the precise reverse. Indeed, we have done so on many occasions. We are in favour of and agree with the additional £40 billion for health and education and it is a travesty to say anything else.
Will you give the House some indication that you would be minded to allow the Chancellor to make a personal statement later today if he wishes to set the record straight, as I am sure he will as a man of good faith, once he recognises the serious mistake that he has made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those are matters for debate.

Mr. John Bercow: No, they are not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will give me credit for knowing something about the rules of the House. He will learn. The point raised is a matter for debate. The words of the Chancellor are no responsibility of the Chair. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) may have helped to put the matter right.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to take more of the House's time, but you will know that in the main business there is an allocation of time motion that excludes consideration of amendments tabled by Opposition Members. It allows amendments to be put only by Ministers of the Crown. Have you considered that point? Has such a limit on debate been imposed by a guillotine motion before? Can it possibly be within the rules of the House to stop Opposition amendments being considered in a debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not an uncommon practice when the guillotine comes down.

National Science Strategy

Dr. Ian Gibson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a national science strategy; to create a National Science Strategy Council to monitor levels of funding, to consult scientific organisations and to advise the Secretary of State; and for connected purposes.
I hate to get in the way of a good argument across the Floor.
It is becoming ever more apparent that science and technology play an important, central role in determining political decisions and will do so in future. We heard the phrase "Science is on our side" in the beef debate, and it has been said that good science will take the debate on genetically modified organisms—or indeed on cannabis, cancer treatments or other matters of public concern—forward. Such phrases are part and parcel of life in this House and of our way of life in general. They bounce around the airwaves and are often on people's lips.
It is important for the politics of the environment that we take science and technology seriously. In September 1999, a dramatic rise in global land temperature raised the prospect of typhoons and environmental problems that must be taken seriously in our political decision making. Even health changes in human populations may be affected by such rises. Scientific assessments and information can inform, but not pre-empt, political decision making.
Science and technology plays, and will continue to play, a major role in the so-called enterprise culture. I believe that it underpins the whole issue. Without a solid scientific base, it will fail. Such a base has been maintained over the years in the United Kingdom and can certainly be correlated with wealth creation. However, it has been delivered amateurishly in the periods of boom and bust. There have been more busts than booms in scientific and technological advance. Only if that base is sustained and allowed to grow, will we be able to play a competitive role in the world and create a viable economy.
I am grateful to the Royal Society of Chemistry for its support. The Bill would establish a national science strategy, spearheaded by a strategy council to monitor sustainable funding, which would increase in real terms over 10 years. It would consult relevant scientific organisations, advise the Secretary of State and ensure that there is a national programme for research and development in science, technology, engineering and medicine. The body should report to Parliament and could address the problems of education and training across the whole system.
Among the problems that the council could consider are the training of science graduates and postgraduates, the medical school curriculum—which desperately needs reform—continuing education and science in our primary and secondary schools. A holistic approach to science and technology is essential if we are to produce a work force capable of thriving in a high-tech world. It would replace the reactive mechanisms that we employ in government now that seek solutions for each problem as it comes along.
We would do well to remember that public support for science and the investment required in it is a function of how well we can explain to the public why science is


important in the contributions that it makes to economic development and to improving the quality of our lives. It is vital for the whole scientific community to begin to communicate effectively to the public the value and applicability of their research.
In the words of Harold Varmus, the director of the United States National Institute of Health, we must concentrate on
the destinations of science, the answers, the miracles, the cures",
and not get bogged down in talking too deeply about the journey itself. If we are to maximise the benefits that we get from the exciting scientific developments taking place today, scientists will have to talk about the destinations and benefits of science. Varmus represents in the United States what I think that we need in this country: a voice for the long-term benefits in science and medicine, achieved by investing heavily in basic science.
As we move into a world of e-commerce, the intensification of information technology and the human genome project with its potential to revolutionise medicine, the call for a focused strategy, a sustainable resource flow and the doubling of the science budget becomes deafening. The Bill recognises the explosion in science and technology and seeks to address its importance by creating a structure for a national science strategy to take us into the next century and deliver the benefits in a co-ordinated manner that the public can understand.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Ian Gibson, Ms Judith Church, Dr. Michael Clark, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Anthony D. Wright, Mr. Ivan Henderson, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Mr. Tony Clarke, Mr. Hilary Benn, Dr. Desmond Turner and Dr. Brian Iddon.

NATIONAL SCIENCE STRATEGY

Dr. Ian Gibson accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a national science strategy; to create a National Science Strategy Council to monitor levels of funding, to consult scientific organisations and to advise the Secretary of State; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 November, and to be printed [Bill 165].

Orders of the Day — Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill

Lords amendments further considered.

New Clause

Lords amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 20: No. 20B, after clause 18, to insert the following new clause—War pensions for widows: entitlement—
(" .—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a widow in receipt of a widow's pension under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (3) ("the DSS pension") and in receipt of a pension paid under the Armed Forces Pension scheme shall on remarriage or when living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex only retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a widow in receipt of a basic pension under section 44 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; and a widow in receipt of such a pension who has remarried or is living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex may not retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
(3) The enactments referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, and any order re-enacting the provisions of that order,
(b) the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, and any subsequent scheme made under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939,
(c) any scheme made under the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939 or the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 applying the provisions of any such order as is referred to in paragraph (a),
(d) the order made under section 1(5) of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 concerning pensions and other grants in respect of disablement or death due to service in the Ulster Defence Regiment. ")

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the House's financial privileges are involved in all four Lords amendments for consideration today, which is to say Lords amendments Nos. 20B, 42D, 43E and 43F. If the House were to agree to any of those Lords amendments, I would ensure that the appropriate entry was made in the Journal.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week, the Minister of State mentioned the Parliament Act 1911 and said:
That legislation can be used to push a Bill through the House on a fast-track basis only if the Bill takes the same form as it took when it was introduced …The reality, as the Clerks will confirm, is that the Parliament Act cannot be used to push through the amended Bill."—[Official Report, 3 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 332.]
I have discussed that with the Clerk at the Table and the Clerk of the House. It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that it is a complicated matter. However, it appears that the Bill could pass amended if the Lords amendments were agreed. Could you clarify that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have listened with interest to the argument put to me. Madam Speaker is charged under


the Parliament Acts with the duty of giving certificates on whether the procedures of the Acts may be applied to particular Bills. I do not wish to anticipate any future decisions that she may have to take in that regard. In the meantime, Members might like to consult pages 569 and 570 of "Erskine May".

Mr. Rooker: I will keep my remarks brief because there is a guillotine on all four amendments. Lords amendment No. 20B refers to our debate last week on war widows.
The amendment that the Lords have placed before us today, as they are fully entitled to do, is a modified version of the amendment that the House voted to overturn last week to allow forces widows whose husbands' death was due to service to keep occupational pensions for life. The new amendment restricts the change further by excluding those widows in receipt of a category A state retirement pension—in other words those with a retirement pension in their own right, who by definition would probably have been working for at least 10 years to receive that pension.
6 pm
In a week like this week, we obviously recognise that we have to look after the widows of those who died as a result of service, but I repeat what I said last week. The matter is under inquiry and review by the Ministry of Defence and it is not appropriate to place the amendment in the Bill. I do not defend the argument on cost grounds, although I gave the House a series of costs last week that could escalate as a knock-on effect of the amendment.
Last week, in answer to a specific question from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) at column 389 of Hansard, I said that the amendment would cost the MOD less than £15 million annually. I say to my hon. Friend, whom I see in his place, that the cost of the amendment would actually be a good deal less than that. One has to be careful about the kind of cohort with which one is dealing. I give a rough figure, but we cannot be held to it. If future and current widows affected by the amendment were taken into account, the cost would be about £3 million. That would not include those who have already remarried. I must, however, be very precise about the general figures at issue.
I quoted other knock-on figures last week for the public sector which I will not repeat tonight because they are on the record and they stand. However, I wanted to put that extra figure from the MOD on the record so that we could see the amount in relation to the group of widows in question. That is important.
Hon. Members are fully entitled to make representations to the MOD. I confirm to the House that I have kept the commitment that I gave to the House last week. I have made the most urgent and vigorous representations to my right hon. Friend as a result of the debate. I did more than send him a copy of Hansard. I wrote to him and even added my own postscript to the letter. I registered the mood from both sides of the House. With respect, I think that the other place also did that because the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman there said that the figures had been placed on the record and the Government could be held accountable to them. Indeed, those on the Opposition Front Bench did not vote on the matter and in the subsequent Division the majority was

somewhat less than before. I hope that the House does not wish to divide on the amendment tonight and that it will accept my motion.
The matter is being given serious consideration. The MOD will publish the review by next summer and it will be available for full public consultation. I accept that I cannot answer on the reasons for the delay, but since my speech last week it has been reaffirmed in the other place by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, on the say-so of my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, that the report will be published by next summer. There will then be full public consultation. We are not dismissing the issue without fair consideration. We do not dismiss the amendment on cost grounds alone. Who would dismiss it on a perfunctory £3 million, which is all that is involved for this narrow cohort? There are, however, other considerations to take into account. It is right that we should do that and not accept the amendment.
Both Houses of Parliament will have an opportunity within a relatively short period following a consultation to come to a conclusion, so I hope that the House will accept the motion that I have put before it tonight.

Mr. Michael Trend: I want to speak, albeit briefly, in support of the Lords amendment, which is a great modification on the original. It tightens still further the ring fence around the group of war widows represented so well by the War Widows Association of Great Britain. Let us be clear that we are talking about post-1973 widows of service men who die or are killed in the line of duty while still serving. Moreover, we are talking only about those who might decide to remarry. The new Lords amendment further defines the group by excluding all widows in receipt of the basic state pension—those over 60 years of age.
The service community as a whole and, I think, the general public, recognise that war widows are a special case. War widows just over 60 are now prepared to take themselves out of the group in order to focus attention where it is most desperately needed—on the younger widows, especially those with children who, by definition, do not have fathers.
I think it is fair to say that when we debated the matter less than a week ago, the Minister was not as well briefed as he would have liked to have been. He promised that he would hotfoot it to the MOD and make urgent representations, and I am glad to know that he has. That is what I would have expected of him. I am sure that he, too, will have reached the view that we are dealing with a special case. We are probably talking about only hundreds of widows out of the maximum 2, 500 that we discussed before.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Like most of my hon. Friends, I followed the discussion yesterday in another place with great interest. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the spokeswoman for his party accepted the assurances given by the Minister and said that she would not push the matter and would not ask this House to discuss it. What has changed since yesterday in the minds of the Conservative Front-Bench team in this place?

Mr. Trend: I do not accept that there has been a change of mind between the two teams. This is the first time that


the House of Commons has had a chance to debate and take a view on the new amendment. It clarifies in an important way the most important feature, which is the ring fence. If the ring fence is solid and in place and if the Government are determined to keep to it, it is sufficient.
We all agree that our service men and women are unique among people in the public service. They cannot join a trades union; they do not get paid overtime; they are excluded from the maximum working hours legislation. They are on duty round the clock. They have long-term contracts of a sort that do not exist elsewhere in the public service. They are posted throughout the world with great disruption to their family life, whether they are in front-line positions overseas or in barracks, preparing for combat. They are the only group of people who are sent on service knowing full well that they should not assume that they will return alive. We cannot, however, take them for granted.
As the Minister knows, there is a real problem with the recruitment and retention of service men and women. In the past few days the Minister will also have been warned of the supposed knock-on effect of the amendment. As I have told the House before, that effect simply need not occur if the Government find the will to ring-fence the war widows. If, even at this stage, further tightening amendments can be found which will help to achieve that ring fencing, the Government will have our full support in speeding them through Parliament.
The Minister has referred to the supposed costs. None of us can be sure about the cost because we do not know how many widows will choose to remarry. All those widows who remarry will save the Exchequer roughly £4, 500 by relinquishing their DSS pension. That will be a net gain, and should be recognised as such in the overall calculations. I hope that the Minister will hotfoot it again to the Treasury to show how minuscule the figures are.
I am disappointed that the Minister's journey round the Departments has hardened his heart. On the Conservative Benches there are many who dealt with the matter when we were in government. They have to this day a deep regret that they did not overcome departmental obstinacy on this most deserving group of people. The Minister must not hide behind departmental reviews. There have been many in the past and they have all agreed that the war widows should retain their armed forces pension if they remarry. I can tell that the Minister has reached that view privately. I profoundly hope that he will not find himself one day regretting that he left it too late to do anything about it. I intend to divide the House on the matter to show our strength of feeling and that the campaign will continue.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall vote with the Government on this amendment. I understand perfectly the difficulties and complexities of the figures. I do not blame my hon. Friend the Minister of State in any way; indeed, I thank him for making inquiries. However, the point about the Ministry of Defence waiting until next summer is nonsense. If the MOD can make up its mind so quickly—as was done at Rambouillet in a matter of hours—to bomb the hell out of Serbia—

Mr. David Winnick: Keep to the subject.

Mr. Dalyell: This is very much the subject. If the same expedition were to be shown in this matter as in some others, it could be dealt with far more quickly than next summer. It could be dealt with by Christmas.

Mr. David Heath: Like the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), I detect a scintilla of inconsistency in the position of Conservative spokesmen. The last time that we discussed this matter in this place, the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) was proud to announce his conversion, but it did not seem to have been communicated to his colleagues in another place. However, a double conversion is all the more welcome and I am grateful for it. At least the Liberal Democrats have been wholly consistent.
I shall not detain the House by repeating arguments that were adequately made on a previous occasion. As some Members have pointed out, the amendment has been slightly tightened since our previous discussions of the matter. It modernises the position and, most important, it is right. It would save money for the Exchequer, although we cannot prove it through financial forecasts. It does not set a precedent, but I have no intention of reciting a limerick to prove it, as did my noble Friend the Earl Russell in another place. The people who serve in our armed services and are killed in that capacity are a very special group. The measure will have the additional benefit of improving recruitment and retention. That too is important for the MOD.
Other hon. Members have pointed out that this week is an especially poignant one in which to discuss this subject—as we wear poppies in our lapels, two days away from the 11 th day of the 11 th month. I hope that we shall send the particular message to service men and women and their families that not only do we remember those who have fought, but we realise the sacrifices that the forces make every day.
I respect the Minister of State, who has approached the subject with his customary courtesy and integrity. I am grateful to him for his observations, although I am slightly saddened by the fact that no Minister from the MOD was able to spare two minutes to attend the debate—unlike what happened when the matter was debated in the other place. I hope that the House will show its firm intention and that the point will be made this evening.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On the last occasion we discussed this matter—albeit under a slightly different measure—I voted with the Opposition. The arguments made by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats at that time and tonight are correct, but, as the Opposition spokesmen in the Lords have accepted the assurances of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that it is unreasonable to press the matter to a vote, I cannot join the Opposition in the Division Lobby tonight.
I raise two issues with my hon. Friend. First, he states that the measures can be dealt with properly and fully in a review. He has given sufficient commitment to show that he has considered the arguments made in this place and that he considers that the matter is serious and that it should be dealt with in the review. However, if there is a manifest defect, it could be put right by the measure before us. It would thus be open to the Government to accept the proposal, which is a compromise compared to the measure that we debated previously.
Secondly, my hon. Friend argued that his case was not made solely on ground of cost. However, the reason that the Commons gave to the Lords for not accepting the Lords measure was based purely on cost. Although some unfortunate inconsistencies remain, I shall not, however, join Opposition Members in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I note that this evening, like last week, the Minister cannot begin to defend the way in which he invites his colleagues to vote on the ground that it is right.
We have the promise of a review by next summer. However, for the Ministry of Defence, "by next summer" is a somewhat flexible concept. I should be much happier if we had a date, rather than a season, for the review. We should not overturn the Lords amendment on the grounds that the findings of a review will be published at some time in the future, and that there will then be a lengthy consultation period. Even if the war widows measure were included in that review, and it would be appalling and a scandal if it were not, widows and their children would have to wait all that time before they could make sense of their future status—to remarry, to have fathers for their children.
We should not ask war widows to wait any longer. In this week of all weeks, when we are about to attend remembrance parades, it is wholly wrong to expect them to continue the sacrifice that their husbands have already made. In another place, the Baroness Strange stated that the matter was honourable and right. It is honourable and right for us to support the Lords amendment.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am more than happy to support the Government, although I share the reservations voiced by my hon. and old Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) about the length of the review process.
Tonight, we have rightly paid tribute to our service men and women—to their bravery, stoicism, fortitude, gallantry and loyalty. The Minister may criticise me for my sloppy research, but will the position of the widows of Gurkha soldiers be included in the review? All the tributes that have been paid to our service men and women must also embrace the bravery and courage of that remarkable band of men, who are currently showing us what fine, brave soldiers they are. Will the position of their widows be part of the review?

Mr. Rooker: I do not have a direct answer for my hon. Friend, as I speak on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence. However, "I sincerely hope so" is the answer that I give my hon. Friend. The MOD will conduct a full review. It is one of four Departments currently reviewing their pension schemes.
I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), and recognise the expertise with which he speaks, as he was formerly a special adviser to the Ministry of Defence. The matter is a sensitive one. Members of the other place accepted that the review was genuine and that the date was a season—the summer. That is the best date which I could obtain from my colleagues at the MOD; there will be time to put pressure on them to be more specific. However, there will be a full consultation.
This issue will not go away. I have been as open as I possibly can with the House about the figures. It is not a monetary issue. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that, if the House overturns the amendment and sends back a message to the Lords, the message will be couched in the language of public finances, because that is the prerogative of this House. However, those are not the reasons that I use to advance my argument for resisting the amendment, although the nature of the exchange of messages between the two Houses is such that such language must be used. I would not want hon. Members to think that, because the message will refer to public finances, the Government rest our case on public finances—we do not.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 361, Noes 178.

Division No. 311]
[6. 20 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chisholm, Malcolm


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Church, Ms Judith


Ainger, Nick
Clapham, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Allen, Graham



Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coaker, Vernon


Beard, Nigel
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coleman, Iain


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cooper, Yvette


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Corston, Jean


Berry, Roger
Cousins, Jim


Best, Harold
Cox, Tom


Blackman, Liz
Cranston, Ross


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blizzard, Bob
Cummings, John


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Borrow, David



Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradshaw, Ben
Dalyell, Tam


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Darvill, Keith



Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Browne, Desmond
Dawson, Hilton


Buck, Ms Karen
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burden, Richard
Denham, John


Burgon, Colin
Dismore, Andrew


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dobbin, Jim


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Doran, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dowd, Jim


Caplin, Ivor
Drew, David


Casale, Roger
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Caton, Martin
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Edwards, Huw


Chaytor, David
Efford, Clive






Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fisher, Mark
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Flint, Caroline
Kemp, Fraser


Follett, Barbara
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kidney, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fyfe, Maria
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Galbraith, Sam
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gapes, Mike
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gardiner, Barry
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Laxton, Bob


Gerrard, Neil
Lepper, David


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Leslie, Christopher


Godman, Dr Norman A
Levitt, Tom


Godsiff, Roger
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Goggins, Paul
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Golding, Mrs Llin
Linton, Martin


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Livingstone, Ken


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lock, David


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Love, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
McAllion, John


Grogan, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Gunnell, John
McCabe, Steve


Hain, Peter
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)



Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Macdonald, Calum


Hanson, David
McDonnell, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McFall, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Healey, John
McIsaac, Shona


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hepburn, Stephen
McNulty, Tony


Heppell, John
MacShane, Denis


Hesford, Stephen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McWalter, Tony


Hill, Keith
Mallaber, Judy


Hinchliffe, David
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hoey, Kate
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Home Robertson, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hood, Jimmy
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Martlew, Eric


Hope, Phil
Maxton, John


Hopkins, Kelvin
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Meale, Alan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Merron, Gillian


Howells, Dr Kim
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hoyle, Lindsay
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hurst, Alan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hutton, John
Morley, Elliot


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Illsley, Eric



Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Jamieson, David
Mudie, George


Jenkins, Brian
Mullin, Chris


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)



Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Olner, Bill


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
O'Neill, Martin





Organ, Mrs Diana
Spellar, John


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Squire, Ms Rachel


Palmer, Dr Nick
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pearson, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Stevenson, George


Perham, Ms Linda
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pickthall, Colin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pike, Peter L
Stinchcombe, Paul


Plaskitt, James
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pollard, Kerry
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pond, Chris
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pound, Stephen
Stringer, Graham


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prescott, Rt Hon John



Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prosser, Gwyn
Temple-Morris, Peter


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Quinn, Lawrie
Timms, Stephen


Rammell, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


Rapson, Syd
Todd, Mark


Raynsford, Nick
Touhig, Don


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Trickett, Jon


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Truswell, Paul


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rowlands, Ted
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruane, Chris
Tynan, Bill


Ruddock, Joan
Vaz, Keith


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Walley, Ms Joan


Ryan, Ms Joan
Ward, Ms Claire


Salter, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Sarwar, Mohammad
Watts, David


Savidge, Malcolm
White, Brian


Sawford, Phil
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sedgemore, Brian
Wicks, Malcolm


Shaw, Jonathan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Alan W(E Carmarthen)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wills, Michael


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wilson, Brian


Singh, Marsha
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wyatt, Derek


Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Clive Betts and


Southworth, Ms Helen
Mr. Greg Pope.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Boswell, Tim


Allan, Richard
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Amess, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brady, Graham


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brake, Tom


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Brand, Dr Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Norman
Breed, Colin


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ballard, Jackie
Browning, Mrs Angela


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Bercow, John
Burnett, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Burns, Simon


Blunt, Crispin
Burstow, Paul


Body, Sir Richard
Butterfill, John






Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward


Canavan, Dennis
Letwin, Oliver


Cash, William
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lidington, David



Livsey, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clappison, James
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Loughton, Tim


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Luff, Peter



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Collins, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Colvin, Michael
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cormack, Sir Patrick
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cotter, Brian
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Curry, Rt Hon David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Madel, Sir David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Mates, Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis



May, Mrs Theresa


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Duncan, Alan
Moore, Michael


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Faber, David
Moss, Malcolm


Fabricant, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Norman, Archie


Fearn, Ronnie
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Flight, Howard
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Page, Richard


Foster, Don (Bath)
Paterson, Owen


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pickles, Eric


Fox, Dr Liam
Prior, David


Fraser, Christopher
Randall, John


Gale, Roger
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Rendel, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Robathan, Andrew


Gibb, Nick
Robertson, Laurence


Gill, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gorrie, Donald
Ruffley, David


Gray, James
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Green, Damian
St Aubyn, Nick


Grieve, Dominic
Sanders, Adrian


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hague, Rt Hon William
Shepherd, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hammond, Philip
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Harris, Dr Evan
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hawkins, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Spring, Richard


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


Horam, John
Stunell, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Swinney, John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Syms, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jenkin, Bernard
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tredinnick, David



Trend, Michael


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tyrie, Andrew


Keetch, Paul
Walter, Robert


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Wardle, Charles



Waterson, Nigel


Key, Robert
Webb, Steve


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wells, Bowen



Whitney, Sir Raymond


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Whittingdale, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd





Wilkinson, John
Woodward, Shaun


Willetts, David
Yeo, Tim


Willis, Phil
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Clause 57

INCAPACITY BENEFIT: RESTRICTION TO RECENT CONTRIBUTORS

Lords amendment in lieu of Government amendment No. 42A: No. 42D, in page 66, line 4, leave out ("two") and insert ("seven")

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendment No. 42A to the words restored to the Bill and disagrees with the Lords in their amendment No. 42D in lieu.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 43E and motion to disagree, and 43F and motion to disagree.

Mr. Darling: There are two issues before us tonight in what will be, of necessity, a fairly short debate. The first is the Lords amendments on incapacity benefit, and the second is the issue of the whole Bill.
First, in relation to incapacity benefit amendments passed by the Lords, we discussed almost the same amendments at great length last week—after a lengthy debate previously, both in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House.
I said at the end of Commons Report last May that I would listen to detailed amendments. I did do so, and last week, in response to what had been said in the Lords, I made two substantial changes to the original proposals on the pension threshold and the contribution conditions, which were accepted by the House. I made it clear then, I made it clear outside the House at the weekend and I make it clear tonight that the Government do not propose any more changes; there are no more changes to come.
The House of Lords has a clear duty to revise legislation proposed by the Government and passed by this House, but the time has come for the Lords to accept that the will of the elected Chamber must take precedence.
I accept that, both in the other place and in this place, there are many hon. Members who are entitled to put a counter-view—to advance their arguments—and they have done so with vigour. However, the time does come when the House needs to take a considered view on the whole Bill, because that is what we are now talking about, and I hope that it will now do so.
I notice that in the other place Government support was up, and many people who previously could not support the Government felt able to do so. I hope that hon. Members will take account of that and can now support the Government.
The Lords amendments would have a significant financial effect. That means that there is an issue of privilege. There is a convention that the role of the Lords


in financial matters is to agree, not initiate or amend. I trust that the House will note that.
The Bill will help millions of people who will be denied help unless it passes into law. I take this opportunity to set out clearly what we are doing for disabled people because it bears repetition. We are investing more in helping disabled children by increasing benefits. There will be an extra £37 a week for severely disabled three and four-year-olds, and there will be up to £26 more for people disabled at birth or from an early age. Both those measures are in the Bill, and neither would be here but for this Government.
There is a new disability income guarantee—up to £5 more a week for single disabled people and £8 for couples. There will be £140 million to help carers with desperately needed respite care. In addition, £195 million will be invested in the new deal for disabled people. The disabled person's tax credit will be worth at least £155 a week for a single person. We are spending more to extend the linking rules, for people on incapacity benefit, from eight weeks to a year so that they can try out work without losing benefit entitlement.
In the longer term, we are spending £7 billion more to give new pension rights to carers and disabled people with broken work records—help that was never ever there in the past and would never ever be there under a Tory Government. My hon. Friends must remember that when they consider who wants to try to support some of them tonight.
We have driven forward the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and we have established the Disability Rights Commission—something that the Tories blocked when they were in government.
All those measures are a mark of a Government committed to fairness and opportunity for disabled people. As I said last week, in the two short years that we have been in government we have done more to help disabled people than the Conservatives did in 18 years, and people need to remember that when they vote against us tonight. We have more to do, but we have made a start.
I am also told—we got a flavour of this earlier from the Conservatives—that it will not matter if the Bill falls and they get their way. This Bill will benefit millions of people. It increases opportunity: it provides the opportunity of stakeholder pensions for 5 million people who, at the moment, are denied the opportunity to save for their retirement; it sets up the new ONE service, bringing together the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency—something that is long overdue—giving every claimant the opportunity to make the most of their potential with the help of a personal adviser; and it replaces the all-work test with a personal capability assessment, which focuses on what a person can do, not only on what he cannot.
The Bill promotes fairness. For the first time, it extends bereavement allowances to fathers who lose their wife and are left to bring up children on their own—something that the Conservative party never did anything about. It doubles the lump sum—up to £2,000—received by people who lose their husband or wife. It enables pension sharing

on divorce, helping about 50,000 people, mostly women, every year—something that the Conservative party never did.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Secretary of State now address the amendment and the arguments advanced in the other place?

Mr. Darling: I am addressing the amendment, as well as viewing the Bill as a whole. I am making it particularly clear to the House that what is at stake is significant extra help for disabled people—significant extra help for millions of people, which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues blocked for year after year after year.
We have a record to be proud of, not only in the help that we are giving disabled people but in the help that we are giving on pensions, the extra bereavement help, and pension sharing on divorce—all essential welfare reform, which people have wanted for years. The Bill delivers it. I make that point because a colleague of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) talked glibly about it being all right if the Bill was lost, saying that it would not really matter. Millions of people stand to gain from the Bill, including those in the greatest need.
I repeat, because the point bears repetition, that we are giving £26 a week more to people who at the moment, get so little that they are on income support for the rest of their life—something that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and his colleagues did nothing about in the 18 years in which they had the opportunity to do so.
The Bill also gives more money to expectant mothers who until now have been denied maternity benefits. The Conservative view may be that that does not matter, but it matters to the 14,000 people who will benefit. All those measures will fall by the wayside if the Bill is delayed or blocked.
I always expected Tory opposition to these measures. The Tories are settling well into opposition—they are clearly preparing for years of it. Their opportunism sometimes beggars belief. I find it difficult to take seriously a party that claims to be concerned about disabled people's rights when it blocked the disability rights Bills in the previous Parliament. The Conservative party is committed to ending the new deal for disabled people; it is committed to ending the working families tax credit, which will mean an effective tax rise of £24 a week for some of the poorest people; and it is opposed to all the increased spending on those who need it.
Conservative Members oppose our pension reform because they want to privatise the lot. The party is determined, as we heard again this afternoon, to slash social security spending, yet at the same time it backed amendments in another place that would cost £4 billion.
The Tory Opposition are opportunist; they are opposing the Bill not because they are concerned about disabled people, but because they see a chance of opposition for its own sake.

Mr. Steve Webb: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that Baroness Kennedy was an opportunist Conservative? After all, she said:
What is happening to our values? Are we forgetting who we are? What does 'social justice' really mean?"—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 8 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 1196.]

Mr. Darling: No, but I note that Baroness Kennedy abstained after having said that. I accept, as I said earlier


that some of my colleagues have expressed reservations, as they are entitled to do. I have said before, and I say again—we have listened and we have moved. I believe that these reforms are fully justified: they do far more to help the severely disabled than has been done in the past, they bring the benefit system up to date and they take account of the fact that things have moved on in the past 50 years.
The Bill provides extra help for pensions, and pension sharing on divorce and bereavement benefits; it provides more help for people to get into work and more help for the severely disabled. The Bill needs to be supported. The improvements that we are making to the benefits system will help those who need it most. We want to help disabled people and to end child poverty in a generation. We want to improve conditions for disabled children facing poverty, to get their parents into work and to give everybody a real chance to get on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the Secretary of State to go on a little, but I remind him that there is very little time and that the amendment is specifically about incapacity benefit.

Mr. Darling: I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, although I appreciate everything that you say, 1 am entitled to take account of what I anticipate will be said about the Bill.
The amendments on incapacity benefit that we introduced last week are, I believe, fully justified. They showed that the Government have listened and made changes. There are no more changes to come. The Bill as a whole is a major step forward; it provides far greater opportunity and fairness than ever before. On that basis, I ask the House to support us in getting the Bill on to the statute book.

Mr. David Willetts: There is no point in the Secretary of State getting quite so het up, and certainly not at such length. I will try to speak briefly so that the many right hon. and hon. Members who have already participated in the debate can, I hope, speak again.
This debate is not about a Third Reading of a Bill; it is about a very specific set of amendments on which the House has not previously had an opportunity to vote. Some Labour Members may not have felt able to vote on the previous amendment to remove the means test entirely, but may believe that this amendment provides an opportunity to consider a compromise. Lord Ashley proposes having a means test that starts at a rather high level that rests on the Government's arguments about the minimum levels of income on which disabled people are expected to live.
6. 45 pm
The Secretary of State referred to the Government's increased support in the House of Lords. Before we get carried away, I remind him that the Contents—that is, those who voted for the amendment and therefore opposed the Government—were 260, and the Not Contents were 127. That hardly counts as a massive surge of support for the Government. Of course, the vote would have been lost on a vote of life peers alone—it had nothing to do with hereditary peers.
The fact is that the Bill is a muddle. While it professes to encourage people to save, this provision will penalise people for saving. While it claims to reinforce the contributory principle, this provision attacks the contributory principle. I am afraid that although the Secretary of State may well be proud of parts of the Bill, I very much doubt that he is proud of the measure that he is trying to push through the House tonight. There is no argument for penalising disabled people simply because they have had the prudence to take out an occupational pension. There is no reason why they should face a marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rate of 73 per cent. There is no argument for the weakening of the national insurance contributory principle, which is contained in these proposals.
The only reason the House is still wrestling with the amendment at this late stage is because of the Secretary of State's catalogue of misjudgments. There was no reason for us to have got into these arguments; it was perfectly obvious from the beginning that compromise was necessary on this issue. The Secretary of State was more preoccupied with his macho image than with good social security policy. That is why we shall be opposing the motion.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend said in moving the motion that there were two issues before the House—the amendment and the Bill. There is also a third issue—the relationship of the House of Commons to the House of Lords. After three considerations of the Bill, anybody who votes against the Government tonight is voting for the House to Lords to prevail over the House of Commons. That is what this is about.
The Bill has come back to the House of Commons twice, and all hon. Members have had the right to vote on it. But this is the end of a parliamentary Session, and we had better be clear that the Labour party believes that the House of Commons shall have primacy over the House of Lords. Anybody who votes to scupper this measure will be voting for the House of Lords to prevail over the House of Commons. I go further: anybody who votes for this amendment will be voting on the same side as two dukes, 28 earls, 22 viscounts and Andrew Lloyd-Webber. Not only will they be voting for the last hurrah of the hereditaries, but they are asserting, if the House of Lords is allowed to have primacy over the House of Commons, that a reformed House of Lords, which is sure to be more democratic than the current one, will have an even greater claim to primacy over the House of Commons.

Audrey Wise: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it is possible that we will vote on the merits of the case?

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend may do that, but she has been elected to reform the House of Lords—[Interruption.] Oh yes, the wording of the motion is that this House insists. Anybody voting against the Government on this motion will be voting for the supremacy of the House of Lords. A reformed House of Lords will say that if the House of Commons was ready to cave in to the hereditaries, we, who are much more democratic, can have our way. My hon. Friend, who has an honourable and consistent record of voting against Labour Governments throughout her years in the House


of Commons, should accept that an elected Government should have their way over the Lords. Vote for democracy.

Mr. Webb: If I followed the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) correctly, he said that if the House voted in favour of the Ashley amendment—the less severe means test—we would, although that would be the will of the House, be being subservient to the House of Lords. We would not; we would be expressing the will of the House of Commons.
The two key issues before us are the threshold and the rate at which the means test tapers in. The Secretary of State has given no concession whatever on the taper. It was 50 per cent. on the day that he drafted the Bill, and it is 50 per cent. now. This is our first chance to vote in favour of a 23 per cent. taper.

Mr. Tom Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Webb: There are only eight minutes left for other speeches so I shall not.
The second issue is the threshold. The amendment ties the threshold to the disability income guarantee, which has the huge advantage that it is indexed every year. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State were evasive last week on indexation. The sum of £85 has been specified in the Bill, but it could quickly be eroded. Linking the sum to the disability income guarantee would ensure indexation, providing safety for the future. That is why the Liberal Democrats will oppose the Government.

Mr. Roger Berry: I support the Lords amendment tabled by Lord Ashley, principally because the Government's proposals would leave 310,000 disabled people who are unable to work without incapacity benefit or with reduced benefit. The vast majority of those people are already on low incomes. They do not slip on to incapacity benefit. They are judged unfit for work following a medical test set out by the Government of the day.
Like many others, I have long argued for a compromise that would protect disabled people who are unable to work and on the lowest incomes. A threshold fixed at the disability income guarantee of £128 would be fairer. A taper not of 50 per cent. but at the rate of the standard rate of income tax—23 per cent.—would be fairer.
Finally, I am not opposed to welfare reform. I am a strong supporter of it, and have been for a long time. I can even offer documentary evidence to prove that. Let me end with the words of Baroness Kennedy, who said yesterday in the other place:
I believe in welfare reform, but I also believe in welfare. "—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 1196.]

Miss Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State urged us to take a counter-view where appropriate. The Opposition have struck a chord with the country at large, which is why I support the Ashley amendment. A Joseph Rowntree Foundation study highlights determined accusations that the Secretary of

State and the Government in general are guilty of age discrimination, particularly for people aged between 45 and the early 60s. Those people will be incrementally damaged by the Secretary of State's disagreement with the Lords amendment. They have poorer prospects than others, and their prospects of finding alternative employment reduce as their ages rise. The Secretary of State has specifically targeted that category of people, and I must disagree with him. I shall vote for the Lords amendment.

Mr. Tony McWalter: What is this debate all about? Incapacity benefit, people tell me. But incapacity benefit is basically ensconced in a Bill that tries to provide work for those who can and help for those who cannot. I have not found a single Member on the Labour Benches, and none too many on the Opposition Benches either, who disagrees with that principle.
The initial problem with the Bill was that a group of people fell into the middle—it was not clear whether they could work or needed our help. Trying to determine into which category people fall has been difficult. I did not support the Bill the last time it came before us because I did not believe that the Secretary of State and his Ministers had properly worked through that difficulty. However, over six months, case after case in the middle band has been produced—some people have rheumatoid arthritis, or myalgic encephalomyelitis. The Bill has been adjusted to meet many difficult conditions.
One difficult case remains—that of people who have taken early retirement and who have an occupational pension. Each of us has constituents in that category. For example, a teacher, after years of teaching, may be unable to bear going into a classroom to face the kids; or an air traffic controller may see a screen no longer filled with different planes, but with a jumble. Those people may retire from their jobs.
The Conservatives reacted to such people by saying that if they could do their own jobs, they could take incapacity benefit for the short term. The Tories had a problem with employing those people ever again and were damn well never going to give them any help, so people were left to rot. The Labour Government say that such people may no longer be able to teach, but they can still do something. We will help them to find those jobs and to get benefits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), whom I greatly respect, has referred to that idea as invalidity benefit. It is not so. The benefit is given to people who are told that they can do no work at all. If that is true, the people involved are invalids, and a whole host of things will be done to help, support and protect—

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order.

Question put, That this House insists on its amendment No. 42A to the words restored to the Bill and disagrees with the Lords in their amendment No. 42D in lieu:—

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 234.

Division No. 312
6. 57 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Denham, John


Ainger, Nick
Dismore, Andrew


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Alexander, Douglas
Donohoe, Brian H


Allen, Graham
Doran, Frank


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Drew, David


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Ashton, Joe
Edwards, Huw


Atherton, Ms Candy
Efford, Clive


Atkins, Charlotte
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Bayley, Hugh
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Flint, Caroline


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Follett, Barbara


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benton, Joe
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Best, Harold
Galbraith, Sam


Blackman, Liz
Gapes, Mike


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Gardiner, Barry


Blears, Ms Hazel
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Blizzard, Bob
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Godsiff, Roger


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Goggins, Paul


Borrow, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Bradshaw, Ben
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Grocott, Bruce



Grogan, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gunnell, John


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hain, Peter


Browne, Desmond
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Buck, Ms Karen
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Burden, Richard
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Burgon, Colin
Hanson, David


Butler, Mrs Christine
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Healey, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Caplin, Ivor
Hepburn, Stephen


Casale, Roger
Heppell, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hesford, Stephen


Church, Ms Judith
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hill, Keith


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hodge, Ms Margaret



Hoey, Kate


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Hope, Phil


Coaker, Vernon
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coleman, Iain
Howells, Dr Kim


Cooper, Yvette
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cox, Tom
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cranston, Ross
Hurst, Alan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Iddon, Dr Brian



Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jamieson, David


Darvill, Keith
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Dawson, Hilton
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)





Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pendry, Tom


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Perham, Ms Linda


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pickthall, Colin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pike, Peter L


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pollard, Kerry


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pond, Chris


Kemp, Fraser
Pound, Stephen


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kidney, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Laxton, Bob
Rammell, Bill


Lepper, David
Rapson, Syd


Leslie, Christopher
Raynsford, Nick


Levitt, Tom
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Linton, Martin
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooker, Jeff


Lock, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Love, Andrew
Roy, Frank


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruane, Chris


McCabe, Steve
Ruddock, Joan


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Salter, Martin


Macdonald, Calum
Sarwar, Mohammad


McFall, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sawford, Phil


McIsaac, Shona
Shaw, Jonathan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Shipley, Ms Debra


MacShane, Denis
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mactaggart, Fiona
Singh, Marsha


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Southworth, Ms Helen


Merron, Gillian
Spellar, John


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Squire, Ms Rachel


Miller, Andrew
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moffatt, Laura
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stevenson, George


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morley, Elliot
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stinchcombe, Paul



Stoate, Dr Howard


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mountford, Kali
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stringer, Graham


Mudie, George
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mullin, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)



Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Norris, Dan
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Hara, Eddie
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


O'Neill, Martin
Todd, Mark


Organ, Mrs Diana
Touhig, Don






Trickett, Jon
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Truswell, Paul
Wicks, Malcolm


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wills, Michael


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Wilson, Brian


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Woolas, Phil


Tynan, Bill
Wray, James


Vaz, Keith
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Walley, Ms Joan
Wyatt, Derek


Ward, Ms Claire
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, David
Mr. Greg Pope and


White, Brian
Mr. Clive Betts.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cousins, Jim


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cran, James


Allan, Richard
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Amess, David
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dafis, Cynog


Baker, Norman



Baldry, Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Ballard, Jackie
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)



Bercow, John
Dobbin, Jim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Berry, Roger



Blunt, Crispin
Duncan, Alan


Body, Sir Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Boswell, Tim
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Faber, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fabricant, Michael


Brady, Graham
Fallon, Michael


Brake, Tom
Fearn, Ronnie


Brand, Dr Peter
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brazier, Julian
Flight, Howard


Breed, Colin
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Don (Bath)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam


Burnett, John
Fraser, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Fyfe, Maria


Burstow, Paul
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Garnier, Edward


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
George, Andrew (St Ives)



Gerrard, Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Gibb, Nick


Cash, William
Gill, Christopher


Caton, Martin
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa



Gorrie, Donald


Chaytor, David
Gray, James


Chidgey, David
Green, Damian


Chisholm, Malcolm
Greenway, John


Chope, Christopher
Grieve, Dominic


Clapham, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Clappison, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie



Hammond, Philip


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hawkins, Nick


Clwyd, Ann
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Collins, Tim
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Connarty, Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cotter, Brian
Horam, John





Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Robertson, Laurence


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Rowlands, Ted


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Ruffley, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
St Aubyn, Nick



Salmond, Alex


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Sanders, Adrian


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Keetch, Paul
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Shepherd, Richard



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Key, Robert
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Soames, Nicholas


Lansley, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Michael


Leigh, Edward
Spring, Richard


Letwin, Oliver
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Streeter, Gary


Lidington, David
Stunell, Andrew


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Swayne, Desmond


Livingstone, Ken
Swinney, John


Livsey, Richard
Syms, Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Luff, Peter
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Sir Teddy


McDonnell, John
Tredinnick, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Viggers, Peter


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Walter, Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wardle, Charles


Madel, Sir David
Wareing, Robert N


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Waterson, Nigel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Webb, Steve


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Wells, Bowen


Mates, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Whitney, Sir Raymond


May, Mrs Theresa
Whittingdale, John


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Moore, Michael
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Wilkinson, John


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Willetts, David


Moss, Malcolm
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Nicholls, Patrick
Willis, Phil


Norman, Archie
Wilshire, David


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Winnick, David


Öpik, Lembit
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Page, Richard
Wise, Audrey


Paterson, Owen
Wood, Mike


Pickles, Eric
Woodward, Shaun


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Worthington, Tony


Prior, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Randall, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Rendel, David
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment agreed to and Lords amendment in lieu disagreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

Clause 58

INCAPACITY BENEFIT: REDUCTION FOR PENSION PAYMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 43E, in line 12, leave out ("50 per cent. ") and insert

("the standard rate percentage of income tax")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 234.

Division No. 313]
[7. 11 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Corston, Jean


Ainger, Nick
Cox, Tom


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cranston, Ross


Alexander, Douglas
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)



Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Atherton, Ms Candy
Darting, Rt Hon Alistair


Atkins, Charlotte
Darvill, Keith


Barron, Kevin
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beard, Nigel
Dawson, Hilton


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Denham, John


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dismore, Andrew


Benton, Joe
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Donohoe, Brian H


Best, Harold
Doran, Frank


Blackman, Liz
Dowd, Jim


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Drew, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blizzard, Bob
Edwards, Huw


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Fisher, Mark


Borrow, David
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Flint, Caroline


Bradshaw, Ben
Follett, Follett, Barbara


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)



Foster, Michael J(Worcester)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gapes, Mike


Browne, Desmond
Gardiner, Barry


Buck, Ms Karen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Burden, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burgon, Colin
Godsiff, Roger


Butler, Mrs Christine
Goggins, Paul


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Casale, Roger
Grocott, Bruce


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grogan, John


Church, Ms Judith
Gunnell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hain, Peter


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)



Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clelland, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coaker, Vernon
Healey, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coleman, Iain
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cooper, Yvette
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Heppell, John





Hesford, Stephen
Maxton, John


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, Keith
Meale, Alan


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Merron, Gillian


Hoey, Kate
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Home Robertson, John
Miller, Andrew


Hood, Jimmy
Moffatt, Laura


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hope, Phil
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morley, Elliot


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howells, Dr Kim



Hoyle, Lindsay
Morris,Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mudie, George


Hurst, Alan
Mullin, Chris


Hutton, John
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian
O'Hara, Eddie


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Neill, Martin



Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pendry, Tom


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Perham, Ms Linda


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pickthall, Colin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pike, Peter L


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Ann (Brentford & IsIeworth)
Pollard, Kerry


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pond, Chris


Kemp, Fraser
Pound, Stephen


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kidney, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Laxton, Bob
Rammell, Bill


Lepper, David
Rapson, Syd


Leslie, Christopher
Raynsford, Nick


Levitt, Tom
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Linton, Martin
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooker, Jeff


Lock, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Love, Andrew
Roy, Frank


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruane, Chris


McCabe, Steve
Ruddock, Joan


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Salter, Martin


Macdonald, Calum
Sarwar, Mohammad


McFall, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sawford, Phil


McIsaac, Shona
Shaw, Jonathan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Shipley, Ms Debra


MacShane, Denis
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mactaggart, Fiona
Singh, Marsha


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, John (Glamorgan)






Snape, Peter
Touhig, Don


Soley, Clive
Trickett, Jon


Southworth, Ms Helen
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Spellar, John
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Steinberg, Gerry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Stevenson, George
Tynan, Bill


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Vaz, Keith


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Walley, Ms Joan


Stinchcombe, Paul
Ward, Ms Claire


Stoate, Dr Howard
Watts, David


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
White, Brian


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stringer, Graham
Wicks, Malcolm


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wills, Michael


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wilson, Brian



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Woolas, Phil


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wray, James


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wyatt, Derek


Timms, Stephen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Greg Pope and


Todd, Mark
Mr. Clive Betts.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clappison, James


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Allan, Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Amess, David



Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clwyd, Ann


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Collins, Tim


Baker, Norman
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Connarty, Michael


Ballard, Jackie
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Beggs, Roy
Cotter, Brian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cran, James


Bercow, John
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Berry, Roger
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Blunt, Crispin



Body, Sir Richard
Curry, Rt Hon David


Boswell, Tim
Dafis, Cynog


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Dalyell, Tam


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brady, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brake, Tom
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Brand, Dr Peter
Dobbin, Jim


Brazier, Julian
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Breed, Colin
Duncan, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Browning, Mrs Angela
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Faber, David


Burnett, John
Fabricant, Michael


Burns, Simon
Fallon, Michael


Burstow, Paul
Fearn, Ronnie


Butterfill, John
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Flight, Howard



Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cash, William
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Caton, Martin
Fraser, Christopher


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Fyfe, Maria



Gale, Roger


Chaytor, David
Garnier, Edward


Chidgey, David
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gerrard, Neil


Chope, Christopher
Gibb, Nick


Clapham, Michael
Gill, Christopher





Godman, Dr Norman A
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Öpik, Lembit


Gorrie, Donald
Ottaway, Richard


Gray, James
Page, Richard


Green, Damian
Paterson, Owen


Greenway, John
Pickles, Eric


Grieve, Dominic
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Prior, David


Hague, Rt Hon William
Randall, John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hammond, Philip
Rendel, David


Hancock, Mike
Robathan, Andrew


Harris, Dr Evan
Robertson, Laurence


Hawkins, Nick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Rowlands, Ted


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Ruffley, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Salmond, Alex


Hopkins, Kelvin
Sanders, Adrian


Horam, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sedgemore, Brian


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Shepherd, Richard


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Hunter, Andrew
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jenkin, Bernard
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Johnson Smith,
Soames, Nicholas


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Spring, Richard


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Keetch, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Stunell, Andrew



Swayne, Desmond


Key, Robert
Swinney, John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Syms, Robert


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, John M(Solihull)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Letwin, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Trend, Michael


Lidington, David
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tyrie, Andrew


Livingstone, Ken
Viggers, Peter


Livsey, Richard
Walter, Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Wardle, Charles


Llwyd, Elfyn
Wareing, Robert N


Loughton, Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Luff, Peter
Webb, Steve


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


McAllion, John
Welsh, Andrew


McDonnell, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wilkinson, John


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Willetts, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Madel, Sir David
Willis, Phil


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wilshire, David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Winnick, David


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Mates, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wise, Audrey


May, Mrs Theresa
Wood, Mike


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Woodward, Shaun


Moore, Michael
Worthington, Tony


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Moss, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholls, Patrick
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Norman, Archie
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 43F, in line 15, leave out ("£85") and insert

("the level of the Disability Income Guarantee")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 232.

Division No. 314]
[7. 24 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Coleman, Iain


Ainger, Nick
Cooper, Yvette


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corbett, Robin


Alexander, Douglas
Corston, Jean


Allen, Graham
Cox, Tom


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cranston, Ross


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Ashton, Joe



Atherton, Ms Candy
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Barron, Kevin
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bayley, Hugh
Darvill, Keith


Beard, Nigel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dawson, Hilton


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Benton, Joe
Denham, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dismore, Andrew


Best, Harold
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Blackman, Liz
Donohoe, Brian H


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Doran, Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dowd, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Drew, David


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Edwards, Huw


Borrow, David
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Frtzpatrick, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Flint, Caroline


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Follett, Barbara



Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Browne, Desmond
Galbraith, Sam


Buck, Ms Karen
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
Gardiner, Barry


Burgon, Colin
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Church, Ms Judith
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grogan, John


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gunnell, John



Hain, Peter


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Coaker, Vernon
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia





Healey, John
McWalter, Tony


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Heppell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hesford, Stephen
Maxton, John


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, Keith
Meale, Alan


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Merron, Gillian


Hoey, Kate
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Home Robertson, John
Miller, Andrew


Hood, Jimmy
Moffatt, Laura


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hope, Phil
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morley, Elliot


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howells, Dr Kim



Hoyle, Lindsay
Morris, Fit Hon John (Aberavon)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mowlam, Rt Fit Hon Marjorie


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mudie, George


Hurst, Alan
Mullin, Chris


Hutton, John
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Ingram, Fit Hon Adam
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian
O'Hara, Eddie


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfieid)
O'Neill, Martin



Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pendry, Tom


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Perham, Ms Linda


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pickthall, Colin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pike, Peter L


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pollard, Kerry


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pond, Chris


Kemp, Fraser
Pound, Stephen


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kidney, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Laxton, Bob
Rammell, Bill


Lepper, David
Rapson, Syd


Leslie, Christopher
Raynsford, Nick


Levitt, Tom
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Linton, Martin
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooker, Jeff


Lock, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Love, Andrew
Roy, Frank


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruane, Chris


McCabe, Steve
Ruddock, Joan


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Salter, Martin


Macdonald, Calum
Sarwar, Mohammad


McFall, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sawford, Phil


McIsaac, Shona
Shaw, Jonathan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Shipley, Ms Debra


MacShane, Denis
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mactaggart, Fiona
Singh, Marsha






Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tipping, Paddy


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Todd, Mark


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Touhig, Don


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Trickett, Jon


Snape, Peter
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Soley, Clive
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Spellar, John
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tynan, Bill


Steinberg, Gerry
Vaz, Keith


Stevenson, George
Walley, Ms Joan


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Watts, David


Stinchcombe, Paul
White, Brian


Stoate, Dr Howard
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wicks, Malcolm


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Williams, Alan W(E Carmarthen)


Stringer, Graham
Wills, Michael


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wilson, Brian


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Woolas, Phil



Wray, James


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wyatt, Derek


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Gareth R(Harrow W)
Mr. Greg Pope and


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Clive Betts.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clapham, Michael


Allan, Richard
Clappison, James


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
(Rushcliffe)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Baker, Norman
Clwyd, Ann


Baldry, Tony
Collins, Tim


Ballard, Jackie
Colvin, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Connarty, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cotter, Brian


Bercow, John
Cousins, Jim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cran, James


Berry, Roger
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blunt, Crispin
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Body, Sir Richard
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna


Boswell, Tim
(Perth)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Brady, Graham
Dafis, Cynog


Brake, Tom
Dalyell, Tam


Brand, Dr Peter
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Breed, Colin
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dobbin, Jim


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Duncan, Alan


Burnett, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burns, Simon
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Burstow, Paul
Faber, David


Butterfill, John
Fabricant, Michael


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fallon, Michael


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Fearn, Ronnie



Field, Rt Hon Frank


Canavan, Dennis



Cash, William
Flight, Howard


Caton, Martin



Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)



Chaytor, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Chidgey, David



Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chope, Christopher
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman





Fraser, Christopher
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Fyfe, Maria
Mates, Michael


Gale, Roger
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Garnier, Edward
May, Mrs Theresa


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Gerrard, Neil
Moore, Michael


Gibb, Nick
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Gill, Christopher
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Moss, Malcolm


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorrie, Donald
Norman, Archie


Gray, James
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Green, Damian
Öpik, Lembit


Greenway, John
Ottaway, Richard


Grieve, Dominic
Page, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Paterson, Owen


Hague, Rt Hon William
Pickles, Eric


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hammond, Philip
Prior, David


Hancock, Mike
Randall, John


Harris, Dr Evan
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Nick
Rendel, David


Hayes, John
Robathan, Andrew


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Robertson, Laurence


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rowlands, Ted


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Ruffley, David


Hopkins, Kelvin
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Horam, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Salmond, Alex


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Sanders, Adrian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Richard


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jenkin, Bernard
Skinner, Dennis


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Soames, Nicholas


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Keetch, Paul
Spring, Richard


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Streeter, Gary


Key, Robert
Stunell, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Swayne, Desmond


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Swinney, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Syms, Robert


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lidington, David
Tredinnick, David


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Trend, Michael


Livingstone, Ken
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Livsey, Richard
Tyrie, Andrew


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Viggers, Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Walter, Robert


Loughton, Tim
Wardle, Charles


Luff, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


McAllion, John
Webb, Steve


McDonnell, John
Wells, Bowen


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Welsh, Andrew


Mcintosh, Miss Anne
Whitney, Sir Raymond


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Madel, Sir David
Willetts, David


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)






Willis, Phil
Woodward, Shaun


Wilshire, David
Worthington, Tony


Winnick, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)



Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wise, Audrey
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Wood, Mike
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 20B, 42D, 43E and 43F and for insisting on the amendment No. 42A: Mr. Richard Burden, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mr. Eric Pickles and Mr. Jeff Rooker to be members of the Committee; Mr. Jeff Rooker to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments and for insisting on one Commons amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that under the terms of the timetable motion that we are about to consider, only amendments proposed by a Minister of the Crown may be voted on, and that amendments that might be voted on but are proposed by Government or Opposition Back Benchers will be excluded, with the effect that the motion limits not only the length of the debate but what we may debate in the following hours?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): It is not a matter for the Chair to rule on the content of a timetable motion before the House. A motion will be moved and hon. Members will then have the opportunity to comment on the content of the particular motion before the House, so there is time for that debate.

Mr. Graham Brady: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any precedent of which you are aware for a guillotine motion not only to curtail the length of a debate but to seek to constrain—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The short answer is probably "plenty", but that is a matter for the debate.

Orders of the Day — Immigration and Asylum Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw: ): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [15th June] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. —(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: No. 135, Nos. 1 to 134 and Nos. 136 to 369.

(3) Proceedings on Lords Amendment No. 135 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill.

2. —(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing the proceedings on Amendment No. 135 to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1(3).

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on the Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

3.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1(1).

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Orders of the Day — Subsequent stages

4.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) apply for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion.

(4) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item.

(7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

5. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

6.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided; and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

7. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

8.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

9. If proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are in progress, proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of those proceedings.

The Bill has been subject to more sustained, detailed scrutiny than any similar Bill in living memory. We published a White Paper in July 1998, and earlier this year we committed the Bill to a Special Standing Committee—a procedure of the House that was introduced by the Opposition when they were in government, but which they then allowed to lie fallow and only ever used for minor, relatively non-contentious Bills.

My hon. Friends who were in Parliament before the 1997 general election will recall that, in the autumn of 1995, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, moved that the Asylum and Immigration Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) should be committed to a Special Standing Committee, where it could be properly examined. For reasons best known to Conservative Members—but which I am sure they will have come to regret because of the defects in that Bill—they refused to allow the Bill to be properly scrutinised.

We decided not to follow the errors of the previous Government. The Bill was committed to a Special Standing Committee. There were four weeks of hearings in the Special Standing Committee, which took evidence from a wide variety of groups and spent a total of 93 hours scrutinising the Bill, taking and considering the evidence and engaged in line-by-line examination. Parliament has indeed done its work—or some Members of Parliament, I ought to say, have done their work—on the Bill, and it is a better Bill as a result of that scrutiny and the amendments that we introduced.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I was not leading for our party at the beginning, but I followed the progress of the Bill and I accept the timetable that the Secretary of State lays out. However, if the Bill was so carefully presented by the Government and so carefully considered, why was a major amendment relating to the detention of asylum seekers introduced only in the House of Lords, first on Report and then withdrawn, and reintroduced on Third Reading?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House since January 1983. I remember his by-election well—very cold and depressing it was, too. He has been in the House that long, and he knows well that amendments to Bills can be moved at any stage. If a major piece of legislation is going through Parliament, it is for the Government to respond to changing circumstances if we judge it aright.
It is precisely because of changing circumstances—a substantial increase in the number of asylum seekers that we and many other European countries have received—that we thought it necessary and appropriate to make the changes in the Bill that we have laid down. We have made use of the opportunity.

Mr. Hughes: That is a valid argument, but it means that a significant change to the Bill—amendment No. 1—comes to the House tonight for the first time. It has never been debated by the House. It introduces powers of detention of people in Britain—a serious matter in any context—which the House is entitled to debate. Is not that a sufficient reason for arguing that there should be no guillotine, as that will, by definition, restrict the debate?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is falling into the same error as some of the noble peers in the other place, who thought that the powers to direct people under temporary admission to reside at a particular address were in respect of the detention facilities that are being established at Oakington in Cambridge. That is not the case. Those detention facilities will be run under existing


detention powers. We can debate the merits of the hon. Gentleman's case when the matter is discussed, if the House approves the timetable motion.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I need hardly point out to him that immigration is a reserved matter, but may I remind him that the Bill amends five Scottish Acts of Parliament, all of which fall within the province of the Scottish Parliament? May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that that Parliament may have the power to amend some aspects of the Bill after it becomes law? Will he at least consider the setting up of a concordat so that any conflicts, tensions or anomalies can be dealt with sensibly, in order to maintain a harmonious relationship between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Straw: On the main point of principle, as long as we have a United Kingdom—a Union—it is unarguable that matters of immigration and asylum are reserved matters and not devolved. That must be beyond doubt.
Of course I accept my hon. Friend's other point—that to ensure the smooth operation of the procedures and arrangements laid down in the Bill, we should establish arrangements, procedures and concordats with the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament, and with Scottish local authorities and local authorities and other bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Up to now, relations between my Department and the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament, and between members of that Executive and my fellow Ministers and me, have been close, cordial and constructive, and I intend to ensure that they stay that way. I hope that that is helpful to my hon. Friend.
I referred earlier to the refusal by the then Government to establish a Special Standing Committee on their 1995 Bill and the errors that resulted. One was that they rejected any controls on unscrupulous immigration advisers. The second was that they removed the right to any cash benefits or other vouchers or support for those who were in-country applicants, and consequently were bound to place a huge burden on local authorities in Kent and London. That indeed happened, and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is responsible for it.
Why is the guillotine needed? I am glad that Opposition Members asked that question. The guillotine is needed not least in order to put right the shambles left by the 1995 Bill and the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, for which the right hon. Lady was responsible. That is one of the key reasons why the timetable motion is needed. There are many other reasons, which I shall give the right hon. Lady in a moment, why we must get the Bill and the measure through as quickly as possible.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does not the guillotine in question refer not to a discussion of our Bill or to the earlier stages of this Bill, but to the 367 amendments that the Government have seen fit to table to a Bill that was apparently so well scrutinised? The guillotine applies to those amendments, and so far I have not heard a single reason from the right hon. Gentleman why it should apply.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady should hold her breath. I am coming on to one of the amendments that is

a source of profound embarrassment to her. She supported an amendment in the other place at a cost of £500 million which reverses a central part of the 1996 Act and would have sustained—

Miss Widdecombe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Straw: It is no good the right hon. Lady shaking her head in that embarrassed way. We all know the truth. The measure would have sustained a continuation of the burden on the local authorities in Kent. [Interruption.] We are not in the least desperate. It is the right hon. Lady who is desperate, as is evident from her volte-face in the course of three weeks in respect of amendment No. 135.

Ms Diane Abbott: rose—

Mr. Straw: Let me continue to explain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Behind you.] I shall give way in a moment. First I shall explain why we need the timetable motion. We need it because of the profoundly unconstructive approach of the Opposition, which continues. In this House, despite all the opportunities that we gave them, the Opposition made no constructive suggestions for improving the Bill or tightening controls. In Committee—

Mr. James Clappison: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he is partly responsible for the shambles that the Opposition made of the Bill. In Committee, the only changes that the Opposition sought to make were not changes strengthening the Bill, but changes weakening the penalties on crooked hauliers and truck drivers with clandestine illegals in the back of their lorries. That is absolutely correct and the record shows it.
In the other place, with the full backing of the right hon. Lady in this House, Conservatives supported what is now amendment No. 135, which would drive a coach and horses through the new asylum support system and the tightening of controls, of which this measure is a key part. That amendment was passed only with Conservative votes.
We shall deal with the detail of the amendment when we come to that debate, but the effect of the new clause contained in amendment No. 135, which the right hon. Lady said she supported, would be to restore cash benefits to those from whom the Conservatives—the right hon. Lady—withdrew them in 1996. The result of that, as she and the people of Kent know very well, is the restoration of cash benefits for those from whom—

Miss Widdecombe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady says no, but that is exactly the effect of the amendment, as she knows. The result would be to suck in thousands more illegal and unfounded asylum seekers at a cost of at least £500 million a year.
We all know that the right hon. Lady is deeply embarrassed by that, and the question for her tonight—it is one reason why we have this timetable motion—


is whether she will stand by her statement only two weeks ago that the amendment was sensible and common sense and was supported by the Opposition.

Ms Abbott: I do not wish to detain the House at this point, nor do I wish to interrupt my right hon. Friend's fun in scoring points off the Opposition, but amendment No. 135, to which he has just referred, places no burden, financial or otherwise, on anyone if the Government meet the time targets that the House and, repeatedly, the Committee were told that they would meet.

Mr. Straw: I am sorry to have to say this to my hon. Friend, but she is wrong about that. If she bothers to read chapter eight of the White Paper, or what I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State have said from the Front Bench on the issue, she will see that at no stage was it said that there would be a link between the introduction of the new asylum support system in April 2000 and the achievement of the target of the two months plus four months which we said that we aimed to meet for most, although not all, applicants by April 2001.
We have already made a substantial concession to those who, for reasons I fully understand, were concerned about the position of asylum seekers who were families with children. We have made it clear that we will not introduce the new support arrangements for those groups until the two plus four arrangements and targets have been met for most of those groups. That is an undertaking that I am happy to repeat, but the basis of my hon. Friend's point is wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Much of the debate so far has been on the Bill's merits. This is a timetable motion and hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman should confine their remarks to that.

Mr. Clappison: I take issue with what the right hon. Gentleman has said so far in such a partisan way. If the Opposition's conduct was as he described, why, in a written answer, did he thank all hon. Members who took part in the Committee, including the Opposition, for the careful way in which they had considered the Bill?

Mr. Straw: That does not for a second alter what I said. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me where he made proposals to strengthen the Bill? If we examine the record, the Opposition spent 14 hours trying to weaken the controls on hauliers. That is the truth, and he knows it.

Mr. Clappison: One example, which the Under-Secretary of State will confirm, concerns clause 45, where we strengthened the arrangements for appeal for people with criminal convictions, for which we were explicitly thanked by the Minister.

Mr. Straw: I wonder how long the Opposition spent on that. They spent 14 hours trying to weaken the controls on hauliers.
The extraordinary U-turns of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald—[Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh, but they must explain how, in the space of three weeks, the Opposition here and in the other place

have gone from supporting amendment No. 135, which restores cash benefits to asylum seekers from whom they withdrew those cash benefits in 1996, to the milk and water amendment that they are now putting forward by way of an alternative. That shows that the right hon. Lady says one thing and does quite another. She has turned once and she intends to turn again. The Government simply will not risk any disruption of our major modernisation of the asylum system as a result of the Opposition's tactics.
There are other reasons why we need the Bill on the statute book by the end of the Session. It improves control; it ensures greater fairness; it bears down heavily on abusive asylum seekers and criminal facilitators, and it takes control of unscrupulous immigration advisers and the avaricious lawyers who often lie behind the abusive asylum seekers.
The right hon. Lady said on the "Today" programme last Friday that the Government had "unstitched" most of the 1996 Act. That is completely untrue. The Bill seeks to make the 1996 Act much more effective, in many cases, by changing it—as, for example, in respect of the white list—in ways which, so far as I understand, never once in Committee, in the House or in the other place did the Opposition speak against or, still less, vote against.
It is well known that Governments of all parties have to resort from time to time to guillotine motions. If the right hon. Lady wishes me to read out a long list of timetable motions to which she put her name or for which she voted I shall be happy to do so. When we had to introduce a timetable motion on 15 June on Report, the right hon. Lady sought to distinguish the Government's record on timetable motions from hers on the curious and eccentric ground that she had never gone in for what she described as double timetable motions; whereas, it was asserted, we had.

Miss Widdecombe: What about this motion?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady wants to get off that point because her point was completely false.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the best will in the world, there are rules and Standing Orders. I know that you are listening carefully, but the Home Secretary has blathered on for a while now without addressing the motion, which is to curtail debate upon the Bill. It is distressing to have such an exchange when many of us wish to speak on the Bill itself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: How much time is taken up on this is a matter for the House and for the orders of the House. I have given one ruling on the content of the debate and the Home Secretary has not strayed from that in the past few moments.

Mr. Straw: I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would accept that, in speaking on timetable motions, it is in order to explain some of the background to them, which often involves the previous Administration's record on such motions.
This timetable motion is entirely consistent with those which we often had under the previous Administration. I can think of a number of Bills which came back from


the other place with a substantial number of amendments attached to them. There is adequate time to debate the key issues that were raised in the other place. I remind the right hon. Lady, and I shall return to the matter if I reply to the debate, that when she was a member of the previous Government, and before that one of their supporters, that she voted for guillotine motions time without number, whether single or double.
We would have wished to reach an agreement on the Bill's timetable with the Opposition, but given the shambles that the Opposition make of their duties, reaching such agreement was virtually impossible, and that is why I commend the motion to the House.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I have heard some inadequate speeches in support of a guillotine motion, but that one reached an all-time low. The Home Secretary has given little reason for a guillotine motion being necessary in our discussion of the amendments before us. It is that guillotine motion and these amendments that we should be addressing, not the past history of guillotine motions or what happened during the Bill's earlier stages.
This guillotine motion is the arrogant motion of an arrogant and incompetent Government. They are, in fact, profoundly embarrassed by what they have done. If they were not, the right hon. Gentleman would have behaved in his usual courteous way. Of 369 amendments, the Government have tabled 367, so it is not the Opposition who seek to impose on the time of the House. To table so many amendments at such a late stage without a single explanatory note is odd enough, but it is even odder because we want to vote on only one amendment. Under normal circumstances, we would have said that that was totally reasonable for a five-hour debate, but the guillotine motion is so constructed that it is virtually impossible to vote on that amendment. That is the essence of my opposition to the motion.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has raised the important issue of the Government's preparedness to introduce a system of vouchers. The amendment passed by the other place would prevent the Government from introducing a system of vouchers unless they had already reached their target of six months. We softened that considerably, to spare the—

Mr.Straw: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way when I have finished this point.
We softened our stance considerably, specifically to spare the right hon. Gentleman embarrassment, and tabled amendment (a), which is in the first group. It will not be voted on. It asks the Government to do nothing more than come to the House when they introduce vouchers to give an account of the administrative systems that will underpin them and certify that they will be adequate. That is all it asks them to do.

Mr. Straw: On 26 October, at column 818 of Hansard, the right hon. Lady told the House that what is now amendment No. 135 was "supported by us". It was supported by the official Opposition in the House and in the other place. Why has she changed her view?

Miss Widdecombe: Straightforwardly, we believed that it was necessary to call the Government to account

for their administrative systems. In the whole of his contribution, my noble Friend Lord Cope, who spoke from our Front Bench in the other place, gave no support to destroying any provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. We made it extremely clear that our reason for supporting an amendment that was supported by Members of all parties—including members of the right hon. Gentleman's party—was to call him to account for his systems. I believe—

Mr. Straw: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I shall finish my point. I believe that the amendment we have substituted for it is vastly better—in the spirit of the 1996 Act and of the Bill—and yet, under the guillotine motion, the right hon. Gentleman is not even prepared to put to the vote a suggestion that, when he introduces vouchers, he should do nothing more than come to the House to assure us that the right administrative systems are in place.

The right hon. Lady mentioned Lord Cope and said that he had not really supported the full effect of amendment No. 135, but it says clearly:
An asylum-seeker…shall be eligible for any social security benefits to which they would have been entitled if'
the 1996 Act had not been in force. His name, on behalf of the official Opposition, was on that amendment. They were not Johnnies-come-lately; they supported the amendment, root and branch, to restore cash benefits to everybody. Why did they do that?

Miss Widdecombe: We made very clear in the other place our reasons for supporting the amendment as the best vehicle available at that time for a cross-party proposal that would force the Government to take note of the concerns of both Houses about the weakness of the administrative systems that will underpin vouchers. That never precluded our trying to do the same thing in a different way when the Bill came to the House. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he does not understand the ordinary procedures of both Houses.
Perhaps I may return to other aspects of the guillotine motion. We are being asked to pass in a few hours 367 Government amendments, which had to be tabled at this late stage because the Government have not managed to get the Bill right hitherto. They are the same Government who made a complete mess of passport arrangements over the summer—there was unopened mail at Croydon for three months. Are we seriously to believe that they are to be trusted with implementing a highly complex system of vouchers that will apply to new but not existing applicants and be subject to a system of interim arrangements for still other applicants? Are we meant to assume that a Government who cannot even run a passport system or manage a relocation down in Croydon can seriously introduce such a complex system?

Fiona Mactaggart: Am I right that the problem with the relocation in Croydon was that the Conservative Government had ordered a computer system and not enough—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that that matter has been referred to, but we cannot go into detail when we are discussing the motion.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady's comment was utterly erroneous anyway, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because


the computer change was supposed to assist the relocation, not take place simultaneously with it. That is what was supposed to happen—but perhaps I should return to discussing the guillotine motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I underline that hope.

Miss Widdecombe: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Specifically on guillotined business, given that the right hon. Lady made the perfectly valid point that amendment (a) will probably not be voted on during the first debate, will she and her colleagues vote with my colleagues against the Government when they try to reverse what the Lords did last week, in order to facilitate such a debate? Will she support us in supporting the Bishop of Southwark's amendment when it is put to the vote?

Miss Widdecombe: No. We believe that our amendment offers the best way of tackling the problem and we wish to vote for it, although under the guillotine motion the Secretary of State has made it quite impossible for us to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman is the one who has performed the U-turns. All through his period in opposition, he bitterly opposed our asylum and immigration legislation, including the 1996 Act, which he now defends as the best thing since sliced bread. He consistently opposed it, calling it a race card. He said that he would reverse it when he came into office. As soon as he did so, he sent out a number of messages. First, he said that he would not implement the so-called white list. Secondly, he said that he would not implement our measures against those who employ illegal immigrants. Thirdly, he said that those who had not had their asylum applications determined—perhaps 20,000 people—might get amnesty. Fourthly, he said that he would reverse some of our highest profile deportation decisions, and on one occasion that even included getting back someone who had already been deported. Fifthly, elsewhere in the immigration system, he said that he would remove the primary purpose rule. Combined, those messages sent out a clear signal to the rest of the world that Britain was a soft touch. By his own figures, he inherited a fall in asylum applications—[Interruption.]
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is being briefed, but it would be courteous if he listened. He inherited a 40 per cent. fall in asylum applications, according to his own figures. Since that time, asylum applications have doubled and the backlog has doubled. That is his record in office.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Miss Widdecombe: Therefore, the guillotine motion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order—well tried. I have to tell the right hon. Lady that we have moved well into a discussion of merits and have come too far from a debate on allocation of time.

Miss Widdecombe: I feel that the need to crush the time allowed for debate and voting is to cover up the

embarrassment that the Government feel at their record on trying to handle asylum applications. That is why the Home Secretary did not even bother to address most of the guillotine motion. He was far too busy not giving reasons why on earth our debate should be limited and we should not be allowed to vote on the one Opposition amendment on which we have sought to vote.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Just for clarity, and following the right hon. Lady's response to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), will she say, yes or no, whether she supports the amendment that was supported by the Conservatives in the House of Lords?

Miss Widdecombe: We are going to support our own amendment if we get half a chance under the guillotine motion to do so. It would be extraordinary if we did anything else.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I am not giving way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot have two right hon. Members at the Dispatch Box at the same time. I do not think that the right hon. Lady has yet given way.

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed not; every other time that I have given way to the Home Secretary, his confusion has been so painful that I have been embarrassed for him. There is not very much point in giving way to him further.
This is an arrogant motion which denies the Opposition the modest opportunity to vote on a single crucial amendment. It is an incompetent motion because 369 amendments have been tabled and the time allowed to debate them is simply not adequate. It reflects a much greater incompetence, as a result of which so many amendments were necessary at so late a stage—but then, in the Home Secretary's phrase, we must take that as business as usual at the Home Office.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have some concerns with the allocation of time motion, although I have no sympathy whatever with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), given the guillotines that we suffered over the years of Conservative rule.
I am worried that, because of the timetabling, we shall not reach debate on amendments Nos. 143, 144 to 154 and 163 to 169, which concern the role of local authorities. The implementation of the legislation in Scotland may cause considerable controversy and conflict between the two Parliaments. Similarly, I cannot see how we shall ever reach amendments on exclusion from social security benefits, which begin with amendment No. 172.
Whatever its merits, the Bill is based on the premise of uniformity throughout the United Kingdom. Yet, in Scotland, historically we have had different arrangements from those found south of the border. I have raised th
matter with the Home Secretary before, but I know that I shall not get the chance to voice my concerns in the debate. We should be debating the amendments.
Local authority social work departments in Scotland make cash payments at income support level—not at 70 per cent. of income support—and then reclaim the costs from the Scottish Executive. There is an important point of principle for the Home Office when it seeks to implement the measures north of the border. Despite what the Home Secretary says about consultation between his officials and those of the Scottish Executive and of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, there are very serious concerns.
Immigration is a reserved matter, but much of the practical support given to asylum seekers in Scotland—I am talking about 150 people at the moment, although, in a year, we may be talking about 6,000—comes from councils. Councils' modus operandi is the locus of the Scottish Parliament, not this Parliament.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman: No, I simply have not time to do so.
Five Scottish Acts of Parliament that deal with devolved matters will be amended by amendments that we shall not have time to discuss. I am making a very important point. I know that Members of the Scottish Parliament and others are deeply concerned—hence my plea to the Home Secretary to consider a concordat in order to maintain a harmonious relationship between the two Parliaments. The secessionists on the Opposition Benches do not want such a relationship, but I do.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman: I do not have time to do so.
The five Acts are the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984—

Mr. Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the best will in the world, does the speech of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) not demonstrate the very purpose of the guillotine, which is to deny him the opportunity to raise detailed criticism during the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member; he anticipates me. I must treat the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) as I did the right hon. Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The hon. Member is straying far too much into detail. I understand his original argument, but he must stick to the question of the allocation of time. He cannot go into such detail.

Dr. Godman: I am exceedingly grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I drifted, it was because of the intensity of my feelings about the legislation and how it will affect implementation in Scotland. The Government are sailing into dangerous waters. There must be a partnership between the two Parliaments. The Scottish Parliament has not formally debated the measures yet. In fairness to the Home Secretary, he has acknowledged the problems.

The Secretary of State for Scotland will have power over the designation question, yet we shall not have the chance to debate that.
If we do not have time to debate such issues, the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the Scottish Executive must think very seriously about the establishment of a concordat. If we do not, we shall play into the hands of the secessionists.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: The Home Secretary was as slick and professional as always, but it occurred to me that he had taken some advice from the late Winston Churchill, who would write a marginal note when devising his speeches. I believe that one of Winston Churchill's notes was, "Weak argument: shout. " The Home Secretary's presentation included a considerable amount of shouting and arm waving. We were presented with not so much an argument, but a sieve through which the words dropped.
This major Bill is complex and has been debated long. Many amendments to it were made in the other place. Today, we have the final, ultimate opportunity to consider the Bill, and the 367 amendments from the Government and the two from the combined might of the Opposition.
This is the fourth guillotine motion that we have debated in four days.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Two days.

Mr. Stunell: My hon. Friend reminds me that it is two days.
In yesterday's debate on the timetable motion, our attention was drawn to the Railways Act 1993 and other Bills to which many amendments have been tabled in the past. According to the figures given by Ministers yesterday, the ratio of the number of amendments coming back from the Lords to the number of clauses in this Bill is even more dramatic. Now our time is even more restricted.
I want to stay strictly in order while I draw the attention of the House to two or three specific issues that the guillotine will prevent from being discussed fully and properly. The first is Lords amendment No. 1, which introduces a new and different form of detention into United Kingdom law. A fundamentally new principle will be skated over in the debate that is to be crammed into our remaining time.
As the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, many of the amendments covered by the guillotine motion are about the difficulties created by the backlog of asylum seekers in this country, and they are much too low down the list to be discussed properly.
The serious new proposals that are coming to the House from the other place will therefore not be discussed. They will have an impact not only on asylum seekers, but on local authorities and communities, especially in the south-east, but elsewhere as well. They will not be afforded the proper attention that the House would pay them if it were doing its duty.
Over the past two years, the House collectively has made serious efforts to improve the way in which it deals with legislation. It is a great pity that this Government, at this stage, in this Session, is throwing away much of that


progress by repeatedly moving guillotine motions. It is a great shame to see the benefits thrown away, and to realise what damage will be done and what potential faults and flaws will pass into law as a result of our failure to discuss the amendments properly.
The guillotine is unnecessary. We had days of slack business last week, including parliamentary days that ended early. We had a serious substantial debate, not on asylum or on new powers of detention but on—

Miss Widdecombe: Vellum.

Mr. Stunell: Yes, it was on whether we should write our Acts on vellum. If arranging for votes about vellum is the best that the Government business managers can do to get the business of the House in good order and to make good legislation, it is a sad commentary both on their performance and on that of the Government.
The Liberal Democrats will oppose the guillotine. We believe that the time left should be devoted to the serious issues that have emerged from the other place, so I hope that we can proceed quickly to a vote.

Mr. James Clappison: The guillotine is a serious mistake. The nature and history of the Bill make it especially unsuitable to be subject to a guillotine in the routine way to which we seem to be becoming accustomed under the present Government.
I shall briefly dispose of the Home Secretary's argument about the Opposition's past conduct towards the Bill. I am rather curious about his attitude, because at the end of last month, when it was announced that record numbers of people were seeking asylum in this country, the right hon. Gentleman was quoted in The Daily Telegraph as saying as saying that the figures showed the need for the Tories to stop opposing the Bill.
I was not aware that Tories had ever started opposing the Bill. The records will show that on both Second and Third Reading, this party did not oppose it. May I let the Home Secretary into a little secret? The Conservative party was about the only organisation that did not oppose the Bill. The Liberal Democrats opposed it—although they never seem to get the blame, perhaps because they pay the Home Secretary nice compliments on the Floor of the House before they vote against his Bill.
Almost every organisation that appeared before the Special Standing Committee criticised the Bill. Hardly any of them had a good word to say about it. Indeed, the procedure followed in the Special Standing Committee is another reason why the Bill should not be subject to a guillotine. The Government are in a curious position because, at first, they said that the Bill required great debate and careful consideration, and therefore needed a Special Standing Committee. I give them credit for doing so, although perhaps the Home Secretary was almost obliged to, because he had made the absence of a Special Standing Committee his principal ground for opposition to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.
I heard what the Home Secretary said about the virtues of Special Standing Committees, and I hope that there will be many more of them in future—but I am not holding

my breath. After the Special Standing Committee finished its deliberations and the Bill came back to the Floor of the House, the Government applied a guillotine straight away, before there had been one word of debate on it, although the Bill was of great interest both inside and outside the House—not least on the Government Benches.
Then the Bill went to the House of Lords, and a huge mass of amendments, some on entirely new subjects, were made. Yet when the Bill comes back to the House of Commons, it is guillotined again. Some of the amendments require detailed debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has already referred to one of them, which was introduced by the Bishop of Southwark. According to the Home Secretary, the bishop, along with all the Cross Benchers and all the other bishops, seems to have joined the forces of Conservatism.
That amendment requires extremely careful consideration, because the Government's case has always been that no one should be subject for long to the new system that they propose to set up. They have said that people cannot be expected to live under that system for long periods. The link has rightly been made by the amendment in lieu and the amendment, and we need time to debate the matter.
That is especially true because things have moved on since the Home Secretary gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee in March and told us, on the subject of waiting times, backlogs and decision times, that he was "on the case". What has happened since then? I am afraid that the backlog has got even bigger, having increased from 75,000 to 90,000. The number of decisions being taken is lagging hopelessly behind the number of applications from asylum seekers, so the whole system is in imminent danger of collapse.
Nobody takes the Government's contention about waiting times seriously, because the average waiting time for all applicants now, for the first time, exceeds four years. The Home Secretary tiptoed into the arguments about the nature of the system that he inherited. Indeed, if he could get back to the levels of decision making and clearance of the backlog that existed under the previous Government, that would be a wonderful achievement by the present Government's standards.
The Special Standing Committee received evidence from one organisation to the effect that when its representatives talked about the waiting times with officials, officials gave a nod and a wink and a knowing smile. Nobody, even in his own Department, takes the Home Secretary's contentions about backlogs and waiting times seriously.
The system is in danger of collapse and we need time to debate that. The Home Secretary is following the Government's course of routinely and arrogantly imposing a guillotine, but I have a sneaking suspicion at the back of my mind that that is partly because the system is in such an awful mess that the right hon. Gentleman simply does not want to debate it.

Mr. Alex Salmond: There are three reasons for opposing the guillotine, as I intend to. The first is the traditional reason advanced by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—who, unfortunately, has voted for
as many guillotines as I have voted against over the past 12 years. If she reflects on the number of guillotine motions tabled by the Conservative Government, she will realise that that rather undermines her case.
The second reason is one that was advanced by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)— many hon. Members have mispronounced his constituency tonight, and I am sure that if anybody else does so, it will turn the hon. Gentleman himself into a secessionist. The Scottish part of the legislation will not be debated if the guillotine is carried and applied. That causes serious concern, although perhaps that is not reflected by the number of Scottish Members of Parliament here for the debate. None the less, there are serious concerns held in Scotland, which are worthy of debate. I can think of many times in the past 20 years or so when key aspects of Scottish legislation have not been debated here because of the impact of guillotines.
The third reason why this Bill should not be subject to a guillotine is by far the most important. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde was right to say that it contains provisions that directly impinge on the powers of the Scottish Parliament—on mental health, social work, housing and the rent Acts. Those are subjects that this House decided to devolve to the Scottish Parliament. Far from imposing a guillotine to prevent debate here on those vital matters, the Home Secretary—if he had any humility or any respect for the democratic process in Scotland—would send the issues to the Scots Parliament and allow time for them to be properly and effectively considered there.
When the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde raised that point with the Home Secretary, he airily brushed it aside.

Mr. Straw: indicated dissent.

Mr. Salmond: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman did. He said that immigration and asylum are issues for this House, but that is not the point that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde was making. He was pointing out that legislation directly within the powers of the Scottish Parliament will be substantially amended by the Bill. It is not a question of the policy of the Westminster Government, because that legislation is under the power of the Scottish Parliament and should be debated in adequate time there.
The Home Secretary has said that he wishes for good relationships between the Scottish Parliament and this place. One way to cause the breakdown of such a relationship is to act in the arrogant and high-handed manner that he has adopted over this Bill. He should send it for due consideration to the Scots Parliament, and if that means delaying the legislation and allowing more time for thought and debate, so be it. What is the point of this House devolving power over key pieces of legislation, but retaining the ability to amend them—and doing so without adequate debate even among hon. Members here? It is high-handed, arrogant and the very opposite of the process of devolution that this Administration were pledged to support. I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect on that and on the reasons why many right hon. and hon. Members will oppose the guillotine for consistent reasons.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I hoped that even at this eleventh hour the Home Secretary would accept that the guillotine is excessive and that he should grant more time for this debate. Some of us have sat through at least two debates on the Bill but have not had the opportunity to contribute.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) for the courageous way in which he has stood up to much abuse on this issue and I hope that many of us faced with the same issue would have had the same courage. The issue does not affect only London and the south-east. I represent an area that has an ongoing problem with illegal immigrants, and with carriers who bring people into the country. The word bogus would be appropriately used for those people who advise many asylum seekers. I am sickened by the amounts of money that some people make out of innocent people who are merely trying to get their lives back together. They have come to this country to make a better life for themselves and often, more importantly, to take their families and themselves out of danger.
I am disappointed that the Home Secretary is not confident enough to give the House the opportunity to consider carefully amendments that are coming before us for the first time today, at what is the eleventh hour for the Bill. He makes the good point that Bills have to be amended, and nobody can deny that. The 300 amendments are not excessive—last night we tried to debate 800. He has a long way to go by those standards.
This House deserves the courtesy of being able to discuss in depth such far-reaching legislation that reflects the way in which this country treats its own and people who come here seeking a safe haven. Our reputation is at stake on the type of legislation that we are prepared to put into action, and if we are not prepared to allow sufficient time to ensure the scrutiny that the Bill deserves, we are selling the reputation of this country—not to mention this House—short. I implore the Home Secretary to allow those of us who have not had a chance to speak on the Bill to discuss the issues affecting our own areas, and—more importantly—the whole House to discuss in detail the amendments before us.

Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on her magnificent speech. My only criticism is that I found her language too moderate. This is a rotten Government. They are the most anti-democratic Government of my lifetime. We all knew that the Home Secretary would say that the Conservatives used guillotines on Bills, but I advise him to re-read his election manifesto in which—sickeningly—he claimed that we would enter a new era with a new type of Government. Of course, what do we find? So far, we have had 11 Bills guillotined this Session, and four of them have been guillotined twice. I do not know how the Home Secretary can have the nerve to say that in five hours we can analyse 367 amendments seriously. Some Conservative Members may believe that they have been sent to the House to scrutinise the Executive. Good grief: do they not realise that the Government find it offensive for anyone to scrutinise any issue?
I understand that early-day motion 986 will be debated in tonight's Adjournment debate. I hope that the Home Secretary will wait to hear that debate, in which a former


Labour Minister, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), will tell the House exactly what he feels about this rotten Government.
I am very angry about the Government's cavalier attitude, as I wanted to spend some time sharing thoughts with the Home Secretary about the impact of his appalling measures on my poor constituents in Southend. The shambles that is this Bill will have a very adverse effect on genuine asylum seekers there, and on local residents.
The Government are a disgrace and the Bill is a shambles. I hope very much that those Labour Members who are not sycophantically waiting for preferment from this rotten Government will have the courage to join us in the Lobby to vote against this wicked guillotine motion.

Mr. Straw: The House will excuse me if I do not follow the lead of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), except to say that I suggest that he should not start exchanging statistics about numbers of guillotine motions. He was a Member of Parliament in 1988–89, a Session in which 11 Bills, rather than nine, were guillotined.
I shall deal with two points that were raised. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said that there ought to be more time in which to debate the Bill. I understand the concern expressed by hon. Members of all parties about the large number of Government amendments that have been tabled towards the end of proceedings on the Bill. That sometimes happens, under all Governments and on all sorts of Bills. However, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the total range of consultation that has been held on this Bill and the White Paper that preceded it, he will accept that it has been very extensive.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) raised the question of the relationship between this Bill and the clear duties and rights of the Scottish Parliament. I think that all parties accept that the matter at the heart of the Bill is reserved, but from 1 April 2000, the support of asylum seekers—in Scotland, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom—will rest with the Secretary of State and not individual local authorities.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 175.

Division No. 315]
[8. 38 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F


Alexander, Douglas
Benton, Joe


Allen, Graham
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Berry, Roger


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Best, Harold


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Betts, Clive


Ashton, Joe
Blackman, Liz


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atkins, Charlotte
Blizzard, Bob


Barnes, Harry
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Barron, Kevin
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Borrow, David


Beard, Nigel
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)





Bradshaw, Ben
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Godsiff, Roger


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Goggins, Paul


Browne, Desmond
Golding, Mrs Llin


Burden, Richard
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Burgon, Colin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grogan, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gunnell, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caplin, Ivor
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Casale, Roger
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Caton, Martin
Hanson, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Chaytor, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clapham, Michael
Healey, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)



Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clwyd, Ann
Hoey, Kate


Coaker, Vernon
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Coleman, Iain
Hope, Phil


Connarty, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cooper, Yvette
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Dr Kim


Corston, Jean
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hurst, Alan


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Brian


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dobbin, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Donohoe, Brian H
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Doran, Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Drew, David
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kemp, Fraser


Efford, Clive
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Khabra, Piara S


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kidney, David


Fisher, Mark
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fitzpatrick, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Flint, Caroline
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Flynn, Paul
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Follett, Barbara
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Leslie, Christopher


Fyfe, Maria
Levitt, Tom


Galbraith, Sam
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gapes, Mike
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Linton, Martin


Gerrard, Neil
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)






Lock, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Love, Andrew
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McCabe, Steve
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Rooker, Jeff



Rowlands, Ted


McDonagh, Siobhain
Roy, Frank


Macdonald, Calum
Ruane, Chris


McDonnell, John
Ruddock, Joan


McFall, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Salter, Martin


McIsaac, Shona
Sarwar, Mohammad


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Savidge, Malcolm


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


McNulty, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


MacShane, Denis
Shaw, Jonathan


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sheerman, Barry


McWalter, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWilliam, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mallaber, Judy
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Singh, Marsha


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Merron, Gillian
Soley, Clive


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Southworth, Ms Helen


Miller, Andrew
Spellar, John


Moffatt, Laura
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morley, Elliot
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stoate, Dr Howard



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mountford, Kali
Stringer, Graham


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mudie, George
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Temple-Morris, Peter


Norris, Dan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


O'Neill, Martin
Todd, Mark


Organ, Mrs Diana
Touhig, Don


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Trickett, Jon


Palmer, Dr Nick
Truswell, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Perham, Ms Linda
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pike, Peter L
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Plaskitt, James
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pollard, Kerry
Tynan, Bill


Pope, Greg
Vaz, Keith


Pound, Stephen
Walley, Ms Joan


Powell, Sir Raymond
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
I Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watts, David


Prescott, Rt Hon John
White, Brian


Primarolo, Dawn
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prosser, Gwyn
Wicks, Malcolm


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce



Quinn, Lawrie
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rapson, Syd
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Raynsford, Nick
Wills, Michael





Wilson, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Wray, James
Mr. David Clelland.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Green, Damian


Allan, Richard
Greenway, John


Amess, David
Grieve, Dominic


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hammond, Philip


Baldry, Tony
Hancock, Mike


Ballard, Jackie
Harris, Dr Evan


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Hawkins, Nick


Bercow, John
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Blunt, Crispin
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Horam, John


Boswell, Tim
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brady, Graham
Hunter, Andrew


Brake, Tom
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brazier, Julian
Jenkin, Bernard


Breed, Colin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Keetch, Paul


Browning, Mrs Angela
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)



Burnett, John
Key, Robert


Burns, Simon
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Burstow, Paul
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Butterfill, John
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cable, Dr Vincent
Lansley, Andrew


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Leigh, Edward



Letwin, Oliver


Canavan, Dennis
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lidington, David



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chidgey, David
Livsey, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clappison, James
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Loughton, Tim


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushdiffe)
Luff, Peter



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Collins, Tim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Colvin, Michael
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Curry, Rt Hon David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dafis, Cynog
Madel, Sir David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Mates, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Duncan, Alan
May, Mrs Theresa


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Faber, David
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Fabricant, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Fallon, Michael
Norman, Archie


Fearn, Ronnie
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Flight, Howard
Öpik, Lembit


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Page, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Paice, James


Fraser, Christopher
Paterson, Owen


Gale, Roger
Pickles, Eric


Garnier, Edward
Prior, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Randall, John


Gibb, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Rendel, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robathan, Andrew


Gome, Donald
Robertson, Laurence


Gray, James
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)






Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Tredinnick, David


Ruffley, David
Trend, Michael


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tyrie, Andrew


St Aubyn, Nick
Viggers, Peter


Salmond, Alex
Walter, Robert


Sanders, Adrian
Wardle, Charles


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waterson, Nigel


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Webb, Steve


Shepherd, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Streeter, Gary
Willetts, David


Stunell, Andrew
Willis, Phil


Swayne, Desmond
Wilshire, David


Swinney, John
Woodward, Shaun


Syms, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Order of the House [15th June] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

(2). The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: No. 135, Nos. 1 to 134 and Nos. 136 to 369.

(3). Proceedings on Lords Amendment No. 135 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill.

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing the proceedings on Amendment No. 135 to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1(3)

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on the Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case pay be) in the Amendment as amended.

3.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1(1).

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

4.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) apply for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion.

(4) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item.

(7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

5. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

6.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided; and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

7. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

8.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

9. If proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are in progress, proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of those proceedings.

Orders of the Day — Immigration and Asylum Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must draw it to the attention of the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 1, 14, 135, 152, 164, 167, 174, 180, 183, 184, 189, 191, 193, 194, 250, 275, 279 and 287. If the House agrees to any of those Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 135, after clause 84, to insert the following new clause—Eligibility for social security benefits—
(". An asylum-seeker, and his dependants (if any), shall be eligible for any social security benefits to which they would have been entitled if neither Part VI of this Act or Schedule 1 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 had been in force, until such time as the Secretary of State has placed a report in the Library of the House of Commons giving details of the average process times in the determination of—

(a) initial asylum decisions; and
(b) appeals to adjudicators against initial asylum decisions,

and certifying that the average time from the lodging of the application for asylum to the determination of an adjudicator of the appeal against the initial asylum decisions is less than six months. ")

Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment.

Mr. Straw: It may be helpful if I first explain the effect that amendment No. 135 would have if it were left in the Bill. It would restore social security benefits to all asylum seekers until such time as the average two and four-month targets for asylum cases had been met. Social security benefits would be available not only to those who now receive them as port applicants, but to those who are not at present entitled to them following an initial decision or who have claimed in-country. In that critical respect, the amendment, which Conservative Members in the other place supported with the full backing of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), would overturn a key decision in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 to remove the right to social security and any other benefits from those who claimed in-country.
We estimate—those estimates have been made available and have not been challenged—that the amendment could result in about 40,000 additional asylum applications in a full year. The costs of supporting that number of cases would be about £500 million. It would be a complete reversal of the legislation which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, among others, helped to guide through Parliament.

Mr. Richard Allan: The Home Secretary said that the figures had not been challenged. I would like to challenge them and many of the interested groups and experts who gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee also challenged them. The figures


that the right hon. Gentleman has cited are an estimate drawn up by himself with no credible supporting evidence. It is purely finger-in-the-air stuff from the Home Office to get at the Conservative party for supporting the amendment in the House of Lords.

Mr. Straw: First, the figures were not drawn up by me—although I do take an interest in statistics, as is famously known—but by officials. Secondly, although I understand that, on the whole, the Liberals are not in the least bothered about the cost of their promises, because they will never be in government, the Conservatives—at least in the past—were concerned about costs. One of the main reasons that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) argued for the removal of the entitlement to cash benefits for half of asylum seekers is the simple and straightforward fact that, if cash benefits are available to asylum seekers, they act as a pull factor and an encouragement to those asylum seekers who want to abuse the system. There is a significantly higher rate of take-up of cash benefits—including by many people who make fraudulent claims—than there is of benefits provided in kind.
I point out to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and to Conservative Members—whose spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, actively supported the Lords amendment, as she made clear to the House on 26 October—that a consequence of a measure to restore cash benefits to in-country applicants could be to provide an inducement not just for many fraudulent asylum seekers to come to this country, but for some people already in this country, who hold British passports or rights of residence, to invent new identities in order to claim social security benefits. The amendment drives a coach and horses through the arrangements that we are establishing; it is an open encouragement to fraud, and there is no question that the costs would run to £400 million or £500 million. However, we shall not find out for certain whether that will be so, because we invite the House to reject the amendment.
Amendment No. 135 would overturn all the arrangements that we are setting up in the Bill, including one of the key arrangements made by the previous Administration—to remove cash benefits. When the Conservative Government proposed changes to the previous system of support, they did only half a job. They decided to continue cash benefits for those who applied at port; they took away the right to receive cash benefits for those who applied in-country, but they failed to provide any alternative safety net. That was a profound defect in the legislation. Instead of making alternative arrangements, the Conservative Government appeared to believe that in-country applicants would be able to rely on friends and their own community for support. Only a later decision of the courts—to the effect that asylum seekers should not be left wholly destitute while they were pursuing a legitimate claim for asylum—resulted in asylum seekers gaining access to assistance from local authorities under social services legislation. That legislation was never intended for such purposes, and reliance on it has led to huge problems for the local authorities concerned, especially those in inner-London boroughs, and several in Kent—including those in Dover, Folkestone and throughout the southern part of Kent.
The pressure on housing and other social services both from asylum seekers and those housed by local authorities in those areas is intense and unsustainable. It results in problems for London local authorities, and indeed for Kent local authorities, in discharging their duties towards local homeless households under homelessness legislation. Asylum seekers themselves often end up in extremely poor conditions. No one—including some of those who oppose other aspects of the Bill—believes that such concentration of asylum seekers in one part of the country is sensible or defensible.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary will know well that a borough such as mine is confronted daily—as are those represented by inner-London colleagues—by the pressures that he describes. One way of dealing with those matters, to take the pressure off local government, would be for the Government to take the view that, until a decision has been taken on those asylum seekers who want to stay here, responsibility for them could, and should, be taken by the Government. The Government could fund the asylum seekers and ensure the repayment to local authorities of any funding that they have to disburse in advance, while the decisions are made. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that?

9 pm

Mr. Straw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition, and that is exactly what the Bill would achieve. I hope that he will perform the same U-turn as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, appreciate the error of his ways and of the course adopted by his noble Friends in another place and support our motion to reject Lords amendment No. 135. Our measures are designed to remove responsibility from local authorities, relieve pressure on the hon. Gentleman's borough and many others, and establish a national system of dispersal in which the Government take responsibility.
Implicit in amendment No. 135 is an assumption that the new support arrangements will be in some way inferior to the current arrangements; I do not accept that. Under the new arrangements, asylum seekers who are destitute will receive good-quality accommodation appropriate to their needs. That may take the form of full board and lodging, or self-contained and self-catering accommodation suitable for families and others who are able to look after themselves. In the latter case, the support will include vouchers, in addition to a cash allowance of £10 per person per week, to meet the asylum seeker's and his dependants' living needs. Asylum seekers will have access to a wide range of outlets throughout the country in which to redeem the vouchers.

Dr. Godman: My question about vouchers is prompted by a letter I received from Dr. Alison Elliot, who is the convener of the Committee on Church and Nation of the Church of Scotland. She argues that such a system will be
costly and cumbersome, and…demeaning.
There is speculation in Scotland that the voucher system will not be implemented north of the border. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, or is that speculation without foundation?

Mr. Straw: I was going to deal later with one matter of speculation about the voucher system: the interim


arrangements that will apply from December to 1 April, when the new full arrangements are due to come into force. However, for the convenience of the House, I shall deal with that now.
In a consultation paper issued in August, the Government proposed that the amount of cash support that local authorities are able to pay under existing arrangements for in-country applicants be limited to £10 per person per week in all cases. Many of the responses to the consultation paper objected to changing the arrangements currently applied by local authorities for a period of only four or five months. Those responses included representations from the Child Poverty Action Group and many other bodies.
After heeding the consultation, the Government concluded that, during the interim period before the new national system comes into force on 1 April, local authorities should be able to continue to give all support to families in cash for their living needs, as they choose. Some local authorities operate in that way under the current arrangements, whereas others do not. The £10 cash limit would continue to apply in the case of the single asylum seeker. I should make it clear that, under the arrangements established by the National Assistance Act 1948, local authorities are not allowed to provide any cash at all; therefore, our proposals for the interim period provide additional flexibility.
As for the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) about whether the new full arrangements to be rolled out from 1 April would apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, or whether the use of vouchers would be abandoned in Scotland, the answer is that they will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Allan: The Home Secretary mentions families held under the current arrangements until April 2000. Does he mean until a fixed date of April 2000, or until the point at which the time limit is down to six months, which is what we previously understood would be the time that families would come under the new system?

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall answer that point in a minute.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am puzzled by the news my right hon. Friend has just imparted, because local government is one of the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and separate arrangements have always been made for Scotland. If the legislation is to apply UK-wide, it should have been discussed in the Scottish Parliament and there should have been discussions between UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers; yet, as far as I am aware, no such discussions have taken place.

Mr. Straw: With great respect to my hon. Friend, she and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde dealt with this matter at some length in interventions in the debate on the timetable motion. I believe that no one—not even the Scottish National party—could argue with the fact that if we have a Union, questions of immigration and asylum must be a reserved matter, not a devolved matter. However, the issue does have an impact on local authorities, so we have held detailed discussions with the Scottish Executive.
In response to a point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, we propose that there should be a concordat to inform and govern the relations between ourselves, the Scottish Executive and Scottish local authorities. We recognise the local sensitivities. We are grateful for the co-operation that we have received from those bodies as well as from the relevant bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In setting up the new support arrangements, we are providing a level of support that is broadly equivalent to that which asylum seekers could expect to get, were social security benefits still available to them. Under those plans, support for children will be equivalent to 100 per cent. of child benefit levels.
We have amended the Bill to place a Secretary of State under a duty to meet the accommodation and essential living needs of families with children under the age of 18. Members on both sides of the House will recall that that was a matter of concern; we have ensured that we have met it. The assistance that families receive will be comparable to that provided under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. All the other safeguards for children contained in that Act will continue to apply. New arrangements will ensure 24-hour cover so that families always have somewhere to turn in an emergency.
The House knows that we propose to disperse most asylum seekers away from London and the south-east, to relieve the pressure on those areas. In doing so, our aim is to make better use of spare and underused housing in less pressured parts of the country. 1 believe that that is sensible, and I do not believe that the genuine asylum seeker who is fleeing persecution will mind where in the country he is properly accommodated for the period while his claim is processed.
We shall neither disperse asylum seekers at random nor leave them in isolation. Rather, we shall seek to house people from similar backgrounds in the same general locality, wherever possible, in sufficient numbers for them to rely on a degree of mutual support and help. We shall also form partnerships with the voluntary sector to establish one-stop shops that will assist asylum seekers in navigating their way around their new surroundings and accessing local health and welfare facilities as necessary. We are providing funding for those centres.
As we said in the White Paper, we are determined to achieve faster processing targets for asylum applications. As is plain from the text of the White Paper that I published in July 1998, we never said that the new support arrangements would be introduced only when the two and four-month targets had been achieved. New support arrangements have always been due to come into force in April 2000. We said that we would aim to beat the two and four-month targets for most—but not all—applicants by April 2001. Early introduction of the new support arrangements is a key part of the wider strategy for reforming the system, achieving the targets, and bearing down on the so-called pull factors in the present system which, unquestionably, have attracted many asylum seekers with unfounded claims to this country, as they have to many other European countries.
We recognise that, especially in the early stages, there may be cases in which support under the new system lasts longer than six-months. Similarly, for in-country applicants, support through local authority vouchers may last longer than six months. For families, support through


vouchers is the arrangement provided by many, but not all, local authorities, whereas for single asylum seekers it is the universal system of support provided by local authorities.
For that reason I agreed, earlier in the summer, following representations from colleagues, that families with children would not be brought into the new support system until the process targets for those cases could be achieved. We aim to achieve those by April 2000.
It may reassure my hon. Friends to know that since 1 October, all new applications from families with children have been identified for rapid processing. About 600 such applications were made in October, and most applicants have been given 14 days to prepare their case and return for interview. Of 78 families making personal applications in Croydon, decisions have been made in 50 cases, including two grants of refugee status and one of exceptional leave to remain. At the end of September, the average time for dealing with an asylum appeal to an adjudicator was 13 weeks, which is one month inside the four month target.
Concerns were raised in the other place by the Bishop of Southwark and others who supported amendment No. 135. Those concerns have been raised in turn with me by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale), who passed on representations from the Council of Christians and Jews. I hope that what I have said about the interim arrangements and the bringing into force of new support arrangements for families will help to reassure my hon. Friend and those on whose behalf he made his points.

Mr. David Lidington: If the faster turnaround time for families with children is maintained, does the Home Secretary intend from 1 April next year to transfer families with children who are currently in the backlog of cases ahead of other applicants away from local authority support or social security benefits towards the new arrangements?

Mr. Straw: The most practical way to proceed is that people whose cases exist before 1 April next year should remain the responsibility of the relevant local authority. That may not last forever, but from our negotiations with local authorities it seems to be the least disruptive arrangement. We may proceed differently in due course, but if someone has waited a year or two years in a particular area, it would be unacceptable to require that person to move in order to meet a national dispersal policy. Typically, such people will have made arrangements for schooling, health care and so on. Financial responsibility will move to the Home Office, but we will not move people who are settled, for the time being, and whose cases have frankly taken too long to be dealt with. I hope that that policy is acceptable across the House.
In discussing our targets for families and others, I am talking about meeting targets for most cases, not all. Some families will inevitably stay longer in the system. In relation to other cases, we have announced that we will make discretionary payments to asylum seekers—families or single people—who stay in the support system through no fault of their own for more than six months, another

point on which concern was raised earlier in the year. There will be a single payment of £50 per person for an asylum seeker and his or her dependants. That would be additional to the normal support, and paid in the form of a cashable voucher. A further payment will be made in cases, hopefully small in number, where a person remains in the support system for more than 12 months.
The arrangements to be established under part VI of the Bill will be fairer than the present system. They will be better than they are for some asylum seekers at the moment, and in all cases, they will certainly be no worse. They make more effective use of available resources, and they will be a disincentive to those who seek to exploit the asylum system for their own ends.

Mr. Martin Linton: Would my right hon. Friend tell me how confident he feels of his ability to meet the targets for single claimants by April 2001? In the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I asked the Lord Chancellor a similar question about the target for appointing adjudicators to enable the targets to be met, and he said that he would be a very brave man if he answered that.

Mr. Straw: I am a brave man, so I shall answer the question. We aim to meet the target. The target for appeal cases has already been met, although we cannot guarantee that it will continue to be met as the number of asylum claimants increases.
It is well known—indeed, it has been a matter of considerable debate in the House—that the number of asylum seekers in this country has increased greatly in recent months and has created a huge burden, not least for local authorities in Kent. The number has not risen because we are a soft touch, as the Opposition claim—I reject that suggestion. The largest increase is in asylum seekers from countries in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, which has been subject to great violence and political disruption. Many of those people are genuine asylum seekers, others are chancers who masquerade as genuine asylum seekers. The second largest increase is in asylum seekers from Somalia, where there is no effective Government and great political violence. Although we also receive applications from countries where the risk of persecution is non-existent or tiny, the pressure on all European countries is related to the extent of political violence in other individual countries.
9.15 pm
To put the matter in perspective, Ireland, which previously received no asylum claims, has received 1,000 applications in one month. Given the size of the Republic of Ireland, the proportion of claims is significantly higher per head of population there than in the United Kingdom.
The severe pressure on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has increased. We are working hard to solve the problems that were caused earlier in the year by a combination of the computer system and a change of accommodation. I am happy to debate the terms for the computer system that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald signed in 1996. She almost signed blind a contract that contained no contingency arrangements. I shall debate the matter with her or her deputy at any time. I shall make the contract available to


her so that she understands what she signed and why the combination of the contract and having to move to different accommodation created severe difficulties.
We have reversed the cuts in staff that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald planned. We have employed hundreds of new staff; hundreds more are being recruited. I hope that we shall meet the two month plus four month target for new applicants by April 2001, but I cannot guarantee that.
As I have already made clear, if asylum applicants remain in the system for more than six months through no fault of their own, we shall pay them periodic single payments of £50 a head every six months.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: rose—

Ms Abbott: rose—

Mr. Straw: I gave way earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), but I shall do so again.

Ms Abbott: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so gracefully. I am genuinely anxious to clarify the position of those whose cases form part of the black backlog. There are thousands of them in east London and other inner-city areas. My right hon. Friend said that such people would not be subject to dispersal. However, he also seemed to claim that the new support arrangements would apply to them—and they would thus lose their entitlement to benefits. Will my right hon. Friend clarify that point?

Mr. Straw: On a phased basis, we intend to transfer formal responsibility for those people from local authorities. In many cases, we shall use the same local authorities as agents on behalf of the asylum support system. There is no argument between my hon. Friend and me. If people have waited for some time for the processing of a claim—whether it is genuine or unfounded; the circumstances of the transfer from their country are often traumatic—and have settled in an area, I, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the officials in the Department have no interest in gratuitously disrupting reasonably settled lives. We shall transfer the responsibility for making payments to them, but that responsibility is essentially administrative. In almost every case, the asylum seeker will not notice the change.

Mr. John McDonnell: I would like clarification on the issue of periodic payments. Will my right hon. Friend advise the House how periodic the payments will be? When will they be reviewed?

Mr. Straw: They will be paid every six months.
As this is a short debate, I should like to bring my remarks to a close. I shall do that by seeking to draw out from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who is deputising for the shadow Home Secretary, exactly what has happened inside the Conservative party since Conservative peers supported amendment No. 135 in another place just three weeks ago.
In the debate on the timetable motion, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald sought to suggest that her noble Friend Lord Cope of Berkeley had given

only qualified support to amendment No. 135 when it was debated in the other place as amendment No. 118. However, I have Lord Cope's speech before me and he gave unqualified support to the amendment, which would cost £500 million and would restore cash benefits to those from whom they were taken away as a result of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Lord Cope said:
Therefore I support amendment No. 118."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 1999; Vol. 605, c. 1147.]
I wrote to the right hon. Lady, expressing some surprise that she was going to continue to ask for arrangements that she had withdrawn from asylum seekers in 1996 and, more importantly, that she was going to continue to impose a severe burden on her constituents, on those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) and on those of every Member representing a constituency in Kent or in London. She replied and said that amendment No. 135 was sensible and common sense. I put that point to her in the House and asked her to understand what she had done, but she brushed aside my suggestion that the amendment would—as it is bound to—continue the existing burden on Kent and London local authorities. She said:
Amendment No. 118"—
as it then was;—
was moved by the Bishop of Southwark…and was supported by us".—[Official Report, 26 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 818.]
She said that without qualification. That was the right hon. Lady's view just two weeks ago, but we are now told that she has changed her mind. Instead, she has tabled an amendment that is, frankly, almost meaningless.
I understand the truth, and I think that everyone else does. As I warned the right hon. Lady in the debate on 26 October, one of the dangers of the kind of instantaneous opposition that she practises and her willingness to answer every telephone call from a journalist and then to give an instantaneous quotation, is that one ends up speaking before one thinks. That, of course, is exactly what she has done. There was a suggestion that I should not offer that warning to the right hon. Lady, in case she learned the error of her ways. However, she is so incorrigible that there is no danger of that.
The right hon. Lady thought that the amendment was a good ruse, so she got Lord Cope of Berkeley not just to support it sotto voce, but to add his name to it and to whip into the Lobby every Conservative peer, including hereditary peers, who could be found. However, she had not worked out for a second what the amendment would cost, but when I put the cost to her, as I did in a letter that I wrote to her and again on the Floor of the House, she thought that she could brazen it out. What she did not see in the debate on 26 October was the faces of the Conservative Members sitting behind her. Their faces were filled with horror at what she had let them in for—and she has let them in for something.
The amendment, which the Opposition are trying to move in lieu, is of no consequence. It is meaningless, but I shall not detain the House on why it is. It seeks to have some information put before the House, but after the relevant part of the Bill has come into force rather than before. We want the hon. Member for Aylesbury, who will speak on the right hon. Lady's behalf, to tell us why the Conservative Members supported that £500 million amendment and why they were ready to continue the


burden on the people of Kent and of London, a burden which they placed on them in the first place and which the Bill and my motion seek to relieve.

Mr. Lidington: I would have had rather more regard for the Home Secretary's final tirade had he not been the then Opposition spokesman who fought tooth and nail against the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and every measure taken by Conservative Governments to enforce stricter laws against illegal immigration and the abuse of the asylum system.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) explained fully during her remarks on the timetable motion that Conservative peers joined Cross Benchers, Labour peers and Liberal Democrat peers to support the Bishop of Southwark's amendment as the best vehicle for getting a further debate in this House about the way in which the Government's voucher scheme, which we have said repeatedly that we support, risks being destabilised by inadequate preparation and forethought on the part of Home Office Ministers.
The reason for the Home Secretary's patent embarrassment tonight has been the faces and expressions of his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Benches behind him. The last thing that he wanted, particularly this evening after proceedings on a different Bill, was a debate on an issue that arouses disquiet not just among members of opposition parties, but among many long-standing and loyal members of his own party.
We are entitled to be sceptical about the Government's reassurances, not simply because of their record in opposing Conservative measures to restrict the abuse of asylum, but because of their record during their two and a half years in office. There have been record queues, record asylum applications and record backlogs building up at the Croydon headquarters of the immigration and nationality directorate.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is surely not leaving the Opposition's support for amendment No. 135 there. Is that all that he intends to say about it?
What the hon. Gentleman claims about the position taken in the other place is simply untrue. Lord Cope said none of the things that the hon. Gentleman suggests he said. He said nothing about the amendment being a vehicle for debate. There are many other vehicles for debate. He said that he supported it. That is what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said. When she wrote back to me, she was trying to justify the content of amendment No. 135. Why has the hon. Gentleman changed his tune and backed off?

Mr. Lidington: The Home Secretary fails to point out that when my right hon. Friend wrote to him, she made it clear that she was not prepared to take any lessons on the issue of asylum seekers from a Government who had presided over record numbers of applications, the vast majority of them bogus, and who had presided over the grinding to a halt of the processing system because of the mismanagement within the Home Office, presided over by Ministers.
It is no good the Home Secretary seeking to attribute all blame for delay and difficulties in administration on the situation that he inherited. His Department's annual

report a year ago, which I assume he read before putting his name to it, stated with regard to the immigration and nationality directorate:
The situation has now settled, and the majority of problems have been resolved.
However, if we examine the check list of the targets that the Government set for themselves in the White Paper on asylum and immigration published in July 1998, we find that they are failing dismally to achieve the objectives that they had set, taking into account the situation that existed.
The target for asylum decisions during the financial year 199
000 was 59,000. In the first half of that financial year, the total number of decisions taken was 20,605. It was running at a rate about one third below the Government's professed target. The same applies to appeals disposals. The target was 46,000, but the actual number of appeals processed was 15,000 for the half year—again, roughly one third down on the target that Ministers had set for themselves.
9. 30
The impact of that is seen in the additional expenditure that the Government have to find. According to a recent written answer from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), the budget for asylum seekers support, for which they had set a target of £350 million for the current financial year, will be between £450 million and £490 million,
Not only the Opposition but the Government themselves have linked delays and backlogs to the effectiveness of the new support arrangements which they plan to introduce under part VI. On page 40 of the White Paper, the Government said that they could not establish the new, faster asylum process, to which they were committed, without first tackling the backlogs. They also said, on page 36, that delays send a clear message to abusive applicants that the system cannot cope and is ripe for exploitation.
Earlier this year during proceedings on the Bill, the Government repeatedly made a virtue of their intention that the new system of support should be short term. In the asylum support information document published by the Government in March 1999, the arrangements embodied in part VI are described as:
a short-term, basic safety-net arrangement".
The then Minister with responsibility for immigration told the Special Standing Committee on 4 May that, in considering the accommodation needs of asylum seekers, it must be remembered that they are likely to be here for only a short time.
Some Liberal Democrats may have strong objections in principle to the voucher scheme, while other Conservative Members support the measure in principle but are gravely worried about the difficulties that the Government face in implementing the scheme. However, there are real concerns about the gap that is opening up between the Government's stated objectives and the practical challenge that the Government face in implementing these complex new arrangements in the short time scale that Ministers have set themselves.

Mr. Marsha Singh: In 1996, the Conservative Government's removal of cash benefits


from asylum seekers was a disgraceful and inhuman act. In seeking to restore those benefits, they now accept that and that they were totally wrong.

Mr. Lidington: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making, but what I find extraordinary, and what I suspect he finds somewhat embarrassing, is the way in which Ministers, having denounced the measures introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), now seem to be inching towards something which they believe follows in his footsteps even if they do not wish to alert their own Back Benchers to that fact.
The Government have set themselves a tight timetable for introducing the part VI measures. The voucher administration contract is due to be let at the end of this year. That contract will presumably have to arrange for the printing and distribution of the vouchers, for retailers to accept them and for a proper audit system to avoid fraud. All those systems must be put in place within three months flat.
The contract for the supply of Home Office-funded accommodation faces an even tighter time scale. That is intended to be awarded at the end of January 2000, leaving just 44 working days between the award of the contract and the new system coming into operation.
The sort of problems that the Government may face can be seen from their recent statements on the asylum seekers support agency. As recently as June, Ministers predicted that they would need between 100 and 200 additional staff to ensure that that agency operated efficiently; but less than five months later, the figure has risen to 512. That is between two and a half and five times the Government's original estimate of the number of staff that would be needed.
We have heard a lot from Ministers about the importance of the interim measures. There is broad agreement across the House that they are necessary to alleviate the burden on local authorities as quickly as possible but we are still waiting for the details, and we read in the newspapers of protests by local authorities about underfunding from the Home Office under the current arrangements and under the proposed arrangements in the Bill. The failure to clear the backlogs means that the Government will have to operate a multi-tier system of support from April 2000. There will be no simple transfer from the arrangements they inherited to a brand new, sparkling, hunky-dory system of asylum seeker support.
I understood the Home Secretary to say that somebody who had claimed at a port before April 2000 would continue to receive social security benefits after 1 April 2000 until either there had been an adverse decision on the case and the applicant was awaiting appeal or until some unspecified future date at which an unspecified transfer arrangement would come into force to take that asylum seeker on to the new part VI arrangements.
Similarly, somebody who had made a claim in-country before the end of March 2000 or was appealing after an adverse decision would remain on local authority support—or at least that level of support—until he, too, could be transferred at some unknown date and by some unknown arrangement to the new part VI arrangements. New asylum applicants would go on to the new arrangements from day one except for families with

children, who, as the Home Secretary has said, would be treated in a different way. It seems that, after 1 April next year, the Government will be trying to run in parallel at least four different arrangements for asylum seeker support. Inevitably, that will breed a certain measure of complexity and it poses a real challenge for the practical operation of the scheme. The Government are at serious risk of underestimating how difficult that challenge may prove.
If I want to be partisan in the debate, I might say that the Child Support Agency is etched on the memory of many Members on both sides of the House. [Interruption.] Before Ministers become too excited—

Mr. John Greenway: They all supported it.

Mr. Lidington: Before Ministers become too excited, they should remember, as my hon. Friend points out, that they voted for the establishment of the CSA. They should also remember their experience this summer with the issue of passports and the payment of retirement pensions to newly retired people at the turn of this year, when many of them had to wait many weeks to receive the pension to which they were entitled because of a breakdown at the Benefits Agency.
Presumably, the new system under part VI of the Bill will involve the Home Office—or its contractors or agents—providing accommodation, furniture, bed linen, laundry facilities, washing and cooking facilities, crockery, cutlery, access to legal advice—

Mr. Allan: Changing light bulbs.

Mr. Lidington: Changing light bulbs, as the hon. Gentleman says. Some medical checks and medical cover will also be provided, and the Home Secretary knows that the British Medical Association is concerned about that. All that provision will have to be set up at breakneck speed and must be operational by 1 April next year. Disquiet is being expressed not only by politicians, but by local authorities—even those that want the new system to be put in place as quickly as possible—and the Immigration Advisory Service and organisations such as the Refugee Council. If the Home Office does not reflect carefully and devote continued concentration to the practical implementation of its scheme, there is a real danger that it will end up with a botched job. That will not be in the interests of the genuine asylum seeker or of fairness in this country.
It is in the Government's interests, and those of the asylum seekers on whose behalf they claim to be acting, for them to make sure that they put in place the practical arrangements for which the Opposition have been calling and report to the House of Commons regularly on what they have managed to achieve, rather than leave it to leaks and rumours in the media to provide Members of Parliament with information about their constituents. I hope that, even now, the Government will accept the amendment that the Opposition have urged on them. It would help them to ensure that the practical implementation of their scheme benefits the people of this country.

Mr. Gerrard: I shall try to be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to take part in this debate.


I do not want to spend very long on the Tory amendment because all we have heard from the Tory party in this debate has been utter hypocrisy. Not a single word has shown any real concern for asylum seekers and what happens to them. It is obvious that the one purpose of the amendment, which does not even try to get at the figures that matter, such as those on what is happening to families or individuals on the support scheme and how long they stay on it, is to amass ammunition for a knockabout argument with the Government over a couple of months. The amendment has nothing to do with the genuine interests of asylum seekers.
Everyone who is concerned with asylum and immigration wants a system that works, and works efficiently. I believe—I think that most people do—that the best deterrent to fraudulent claims is a system that makes quick decisions and enforces them. Creating such a system is the most important thing that we could do to sort out the problems.
The amendment is about more than decision making. It goes to the heart of the Bill's provisions on the support system; it refers to cash support. I want to put it on record again that I still believe that a cash support system is far superior to one that is based on vouchers. I shall not rehearse all the arguments about vouchers; suffice it to say that a cash support system is better, cheaper per capita and far easier to administer.
I have yet to see any convincing proof of the simplistic argument that cash benefits are a pull, although it is stated as an assertion, almost as if it were simply a matter of fact or common sense, and inevitable. The only statistics that I have ever heard quoted to support such an argument are on the shift in the balance of applications, as more people began to apply at port after cash benefits were withdrawn from in-country applicants. In fact, applications at port went from one third of the total pre-1996 to about 40 per cent. during 1996, up to 51 per cent. in 1997, and back down to 41 per cent. in 1999. Therefore, the balance has not shifted significantly.
Let us consider the detailed analysis of what has happened. In 1998—these are recent applications—nearly 40 per cent. of grants of asylum and 64 per cent. of grants of exceptional leave were made to port applicants. If it were true that fraudulent applicants were attracted by cash benefits, one would have expected the proportion of people being granted asylum and exceptional leave at port to have fallen. It did not.
Let us consider countries such as Yugoslavia, Somalia and Afghanistan from which no one disputes that many genuine applicants come. There are widely different patterns in the proportions of people who apply at port and in-country; the argument is not simplistic. There are obviously all sorts of factors at work concerning where people choose to apply. The question is not just simply of the pull of benefits. If there were such a pull, why are there so few asylum seekers in Scotland, where they still receive the full rate of income support, whoever they are? We have not seen floods of people suddenly deciding to go to Scotland.
9. 45 pm
As for the other targets that the amendments address, the obvious question is: can they be achieved? They are not being achieved now. I had a written answer two weeks ago telling me that the current average time for processing was four years. I see the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) nodding—but many of those people applied before the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, and the Government whom he supported deliberately put them into a separate queue, and created a backlog by not processing their applications. They tried to speed up applications overall by dealing with recent applicants while letting the older applications stay in the queue.
Listening to the Home Secretary, I was a little worried that we might be starting to move down that road again, by creating a fast track for families with children, for whom target times will be met while leaving other people to sit and wait longer, or by dealing with new applicants fast and letting previous applicants wait.
It may be true that appeals are being dealt with within 13 weeks on average, but that is after a period in which relatively few decisions have come out of the Home Office. If decisions from the Home Office are made more quickly, so that there are more of them, there will be a question mark over whether the appeal authorities will be able to deal with the increased flow.
The other direct consequence of the Government's rejection of the Lords amendment is that we shall adopt the interim scheme. Hon. Members who have not yet done so should read the consultation paper, because it will definitely affect their local authorities. The scheme is a Government scheme in all but name, but will be run by local authorities.
Can we really expect local authorities to operate a voluntary scheme of dispersal? It may be voluntary for the local authorities, but not for asylum seekers, who will be told where to go. What will happen when different local authorities adopt different standards, and different tests of destitution are applied?
How will families survive? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made great play of a commitment that he gave in the summer that families with children would not go into the support system. None the less, they are going into local authority support systems. He said that local authorities would be able to provide cash if they chose, but if they do not have to supply cash to families, that must mean—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend would confirm that local authorities will have to give cash to families, and will not have a choice.

Mr. Straw: I am glad to offer my hon. Friend reassurance. Under the Children Acts, under which support for families with children is provided, local authorities have the discretion to provide support either in cash or in kind, or a mixture of both. There is a wide range of provision, and we do not intend to change those arrangements when we bring in the interim arrangements that will apply between 1 December and 1 April.

Mr. Gerrard: The implications of that seem to be that there will be families with children who have to live on vouchers.
Much play has been made about what the voluntary sector will do. We are making all sorts of assumptions about what they will contribute in the new support scheme, such as supporting people who cannot be removed.

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Mr. Gerrard: I want to finish my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will let me, because I know that other people want to speak.
We are asking the voluntary sector to support people who may be destitute, but the support that they get may be taken into account in deciding whether they qualify as destitute for local authority purposes. That is important, because we are telling the voluntary sector that it will not be able to top up payments and give people additional help. If voluntary organisations do that, what they give will be taken into account in assessing destitution.
I am sorry to see us enacting the Bill in this form. I hope that I am wrong, and that in a year, 18 months or two years, my right hon. Friend will be able to demonstrate that we have a system, including a support system, that works. However, I am afraid that that will not happen and that we are passing a Bill that will create even worse chaos than exists now.

Mr. Allan: I commend the Bishop of Southwark's amendment. It was supported by a rainbow coalition of all parties and of none in the Upper kaufHouse. It is a tribute to the Bishop of Southwark and those in the upper House who took an independent view and were not tempted to view immigration matters as a sensitive political concern about which they must at all times be defensive. It sometimes appears that the other place is more willing to celebrate the contribution made by refugees to this country.
The Home Secretary appeared at one point to have seen the light when he referred to international conditions being the main driver behind the recent increase in asylum applications. That is the argument advanced by the Liberal Democrats in recent years, but the Home Secretary contradicted himself later by describing the cash benefits as the principal pull factor. The Home Secretary appears to argue either position as it suits him.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said earlier that Liberal Democrats said nice things about the Home Secretary, but the hon. Gentleman himself played a constructive role in Committee. We formed an effective opposition in that Committee, but unfortunately the Home Secretary was not able to appreciate that.
We agreed with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) when he said that the issue is primarily administrative, not legislative. Getting the administration right is the key, not simply banging through more legislation to pile on top of what we have had already. We were promised a fundamental review of all immigration legislation in this Bill, but other issues have been tagged on—not least the support system that we are debating. In our view, the Government are following the Conservatives' pattern of talking tough and legislating on immigration but then watching the system descend into further chaos. The support system in the Bill will continue that pattern.
The Lord Chancellor's comments about the likelihood of meeting the six-month target and recruiting the adjudicators have already been mentioned. The Home

Secretary also said that the Government were aiming to meet the target, but that is meaningless in terms of holding the Government to account on those targets. We have also heard the evidence of the unions who represent workers in the immigration service. They appeared before the Special Standing Committee and said that even with the workers who were being recruited, the service would not be able to keep up with the growing backlog. The immigration service unions have since confirmed the problems faced in Croydon and elsewhere. We cannot therefore sit here and blithely accept the Home Secretary's assurances that he hopes to meet the target.
In the context of dispersal, it is vital that local authorities be given assurances about the targets, because they need to be able to plan. The local authority in Sheffield has voiced its concerns to me, and I am sure that other hon. Members will have had the same experience. How can local authorities plan for education and social services unless they know how long they will be responsible for applicants for asylum? Local health services have similar problems.
We provided a tremendous reception for Kosovans in my local authority, but that was based on full backing from the Home Office and a clear idea of what would happen. That will not happen under the new system and the asylum support directorate. The situation will be chaotic, and local authorities will find that difficult. However, we can be sure that they will continue to pick up the pieces for people who are desperate. The social services and other agencies, including the churches and the voluntary sector—often funded by the local authority for precisely that purpose—always do, whatever we put in the Bill about specific responsibilities for local authorities.
We are concerned that the Asylum Support Directorate is advertising under the Government scheme—not the one in the amendment—for other accommodation outside the consortium. How can a local authority plan to participate in such arrangements when advertisements are placed seeking other providers of accommodation in its area? Again, it may not always feel included in those discussions, nor able to contribute effectively to decisions about where people should end up.
The messages that have been given out have not always been helpful. I join in the commendations of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) for the way in which he has taken a principled position, but it is clear that local authorities have been told that knife-wielding maniacs from Kent will be coming their way under the dispersal arrangements that the Government will impose. The publicity that has been created—and examples have been cited in the House—has been entirely counterproductive when it comes to getting local authorities outside London and the south-east to co-operate and participate. I very much regret some of the comments that have been made.
The figures given by the Home Secretary in rejecting the amendment were assertions, not facts. They are supported by no evidence other than the assertions of his officials. As happened with the police figures, the Home Secretary sometimes has to return to the House and say that the assertions made by his officials are not entirely what he would have wished to make had he checked them more carefully. We consider that the assertions behind the figures that the Home Secretary gave are based on supposition, in an attempt to make a case that he has decided already.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow rehearsed the arguments about the figures after the 1996 Act, when the choice was between cash benefits and nothing. If a deterrent effect existed, at most it was of about 10 per cent. initially, before fading altogether. The Home Secretary's figures ask us to assume a deterrent effect of 20 per cent., but we have no serious reason to take that as a fact.
The costs of the new system will be much higher—even the Government have admitted that administering vouchers will be more expensive. Officials from Kent county council told the Special Standing Committee that choosing the voucher option would be a disaster. Representatives from the Association of London Government said that the system would be expensive and difficult to administer.
However, the Bill proposes a central unit to administer that system throughout the country and to manage contracts that are supposed to cover details such as the changing of light bulbs and the provision of basic necessities. We are expected to take at face value the assertion that, in effect, the system will cost nothing, whereas a system involving social security benefits would be a full-cost operation. Clearly, rejecting the amendment and going down the route proposed in the Bill will involve an enormous cost.
We are also asked to take at face value the assertion that the administration system will work, yet we hear stories about how little communication exists between the asylum casework section and the new Asylum Support Directorate. The two operations must go hand in hand: the support system cannot work unless the casework is progressing effectively. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to correct me, but I understand that the computer systems for the casework directorate and the Asylum Support Directorate are not compatible.
Major worries remain about the manipulation and management of the hearings that will allow people to come off the system within six months. There is no evidence that the problems of that self-created millennium bug have been solved, even though the clock is ticking and there are only five months to go until the system becomes operational in April 2000.
The key is to get the determination right and fair at the first attempt. That is the way to speed up the system and resolve the problems with it, but there is no evidence that the Government will be able to deliver that.
My noble Friend Earl Russell referred in another place to the Child Support Agency. The difficulties that he described with that agency bore uncanny parallels with the problems evident in the asylum system. He spoke of implementing simultaneously a major piece of legislation, a major administrative reorganisation and a major new computer system, and described the disaster that that could cause. That is uncannily reminiscent of what happened with the Passport Agency, and I regret that it may also happen with the Asylum Support Directorate.
If the amendment is rejected and the Government's bland assurances and unfounded assertions on this issue are accepted, I fear that we shall have to return to the House in a few years to consider yet more legislation, which will be sold to us as the magic wand to solve a problem that will have got worse in the intervening period.

10 pm

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) talked about a magic wand. There is no such thing and I do not see one coming along.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) spoke with authority and compassion about the effect of the present system on genuine asylum seekers—the situation inherited from the Conservative party. Those of us who represent constituencies with large numbers of asylum seekers, as I do, are well aware of the impact on them of that administrative confusion.
The hon. Member for Hallam also says that he wants a system that is fair, but in my experience, where the system works, it is very fair. For example, last month I held a three and a half hour advice bureau, which dealt mostly with people who were here and had been given indefinite or considerable periods of leave to remain. They were mainly Somalis. They had no complaints about the system that had allowed them to be here as asylum seekers. Nor did they have any complaints about Manchester city council. That council has not had any complaints about the situation—it has done remarkable things for asylum seekers, particularly those from Somalia but also those from Kosovo. We have a large number of people from Kosovo in my constituency.
So many people who have been asylum seekers come to my advice bureau not because they are here or are not being sustained, but because the system has become so clogged with bogus asylum seekers that they cannot get the processing that they need—for example, with travel documents and verification of their presence here.
One of my cases concerns a woman from Croatia who is an asylum seeker. She needs verification of her status from the Home Office because she cannot obtain the benefits to which she is entitled. She is getting cheques on a weekly basis, at best. That is because she has been waiting for 15 months simply for a reply from the Home Office, owing to the misguided legislation of the Conservative party which has resulted in chaos in the system—utter chaos for applications and appeals. As a result, people with genuine and important problems cannot get responses.
Week after week I have to deal with the problems of people not only from Somalia, but from Sierra Leone, Algeria, Libya—an appalling case involving a man who had had a frightful wound inflicted on him—Iraq and many other countries. They have no problem with being in this country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has treated all of them very well indeed. The problem is that they are in a state of limbo because the system is clogged with bogus asylum seekers.
Last weekend, I had a discussion with senior members of the race relations sector in Manchester. As it happens, it was at an event organised by Asian constituents. They told me of their total support for this legislation. They do not support it because they are happy with it—who can be happy with legislation that has to introduce such Gordian measures? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not happy that he has had to introduce it. They support it because they believe that it is the best way to cut open the system and rid it of the awful consultants and solicitors who have battened and leached on certain people, urging them to apply for asylum when they are not eligible and making money out of human misery.
That human misery is twofold. There is the human misery of the genuine asylum seekers who are not having their cases dealt with efficiently or satisfactorily, and that of the people who have been induced to apply for asylum who are never in a million years going to get it but whose cases must be considered as if they are genuine, just in case they turn out to be such.
That is the unhappy dilemma facing my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He is using better endeavours—better than any Home Secretary whom I have encountered in my 29 years in this place—to deal with problems that are often insoluble, always vexatious and sometimes—far too often—exacerbated by the exploitation of the system by people who are exploited by consultants. If there is one reason why I want this Bill on the statute book, it is so that the measures against the bogus consultants and exploitative solicitors can be brought into action. I name Thornhill Ince in Manchester as a firm of solicitors whose exploitation of members of the ethnic minority communities is absolutely scandalous.
I wish, as does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that he did not have to introduce the systems that are in this Bill, but I see no alternative. There is certainly no alternative in the amendment that he is asking the House to reject. The conditions that it would impose are not only unfulfillable but would make the situation worse. They would create a vicious circle that would not improve matters for a single human being.
Where I agree totally with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow is on his emphasis on the fact that these people are all individuals suffering from misery, fear, apprehension and concern about their relatives abroad whom they may or may not see. We must devise not the best, but the least bad system. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not asking for plaudits for having produced something that, in the words of the hon. Member for Hallam, will wave a magic wand. He deserves credit for understanding the issues in a way that no Home Secretary whom I have known has understood them, and for his honest efforts to achieve a solution. He may regard that as faint praise, but praise it is meant to be. I am not happy that we have to have such conditions in the Bill, but if they can cut through the logjam and discourage the consultants and the solicitors, he has some chance of making the situation better. That is why the Bill's registration system is so important.

Mr. Singh: Does my right hon. Friend believe that vouchers are a more efficient, compassionate and humane way of supporting asylum seekers than cash payments?

Mr. Kaufman: I do not believe that vouchers are more compassionate. I do not know whether they will be more efficient. They are worth trying, particularly on the discriminatory basis that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary described. I cannot say that I am delirious with pleasure at the idea that the Bill contains them, but the situation must be solved because of the many people who are suffering seriously from what my right hon. Friend inherited from the Conservative Government.

Mr. Michael Howard: Despite his inaccurate criticisms of the record of the previous Government, I derived a good deal of encouragement from the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The implication, when one cut

through much of the language of his speech, was a recognition at last from a Labour Member that the challenge that we face is how to deter undeserving applicants for political asylum so that applicants genuinely fleeing persecution can have their claims dealt with speedily and effectively, and can be given the asylum to which they are entitled.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howard: I have very little time. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will not give way again.

Mr. Corbyn: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes any further down this road, can he tell us where he gets any evidence that any change in the number of people fleeing to Britain, or anywhere else in Europe, to seek a place of safety under the terms of the 1951 Geneva convention has taken place as a result of a system of payments of benefits either in cash or in kind?

Mr. Howard: I am coming to exactly that point. In view of the criticisms made by the right hon. Member for Gorton and repeatedly made by the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers, I want to begin this necessarily brief speech by putting the record straight.
These are the figures. In 1996—the last full year of the previous Government's term—the number of asylum seekers was just under 30,009,640. In the previous year, the number was almost 44,000 —43,965 to be exact. That reduction was a direct result of the 1996 legislation for which I was responsible and the associated benefit changes for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was responsible.
If we compare the figures month by month—a much fairer comparison since the changes were not in force for the whole of 1996—the percentage reduction was even greater than that represented by the figures that I have just quoted. If, for example, we compare May 1996 with May 1995, the reduction was almost 50 per cent. The statistics are a matter of record. If the Home Secretary wants to challenge them, I will give way to him.
At present, the number of those seeking asylum is soaring and out of control; the backlog is soaring and out of control. That is a direct consequence of the decisions of the Home Secretary. He had the remedy in his own hands. He could have implemented in full the measures contained in the 1996 Act and the associated benefit changes, but he chose not to do so. The consequences were predictable and they have come to pass.
I hope that the measures that the Home Secretary is now putting in place will succeed. I give him this personal assurance. I do not join him in criticising the Lords amendment this evening simply to embarrass him and make mischief for him among some of his hon. Friends. I hope that his measures succeed. If they do, it will be greatly to the benefit of my constituents in Folkestone and those in neighbouring parts of east Kent.
The effect of the Home Secretary's measures would be significantly diminished if the Lords amendment were to stand. There is concern among hon. Members of all parties about the backlog. The key to reducing the backlog is to reduce the number of undeserving applicants. That, too, is proved by the record of the previous Government.


In 1995, just over 27,000 decisions on asylum were made—27,005, to be precise. In 1996, after the changes that I have described, that number increased to almost 39,000 —38,960. The number of decisions in 1996 exceeded the number of applications for asylum by almost 10,000. The backlog was being substantially reduced, which was a far cry from the situation that we face at present.
The Lords amendment would not help to remedy the present situation. Indeed, it would be counterproductive, so the Home Secretary and my right hon. and hon. Friends are right not to support it. I am sorry that we shall not have the opportunity to vote for the modest amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I do not quite understand why the Government do not accept it. However, I am serious in my hope that the Government's measures succeed. If they do not, I hope that the Government will not shrink from reconsidering the matter and, indeed, from paying some further attention to the measures that achieved such success in 1996. I shall be ready and available to help the Home Secretary, if and when that moment comes.

Ms Abbott: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak briefly in support of Lords amendment No. 135. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that if the amendment were allowed to stand, it would set unfulfillable criteria. On the contrary, the criteria set by the amendment for the average times of determination were those that Ministers assured us over and over again—in the House and in Committee—could and would be met. I do not want to detain the House on this point, but it may be helpful if I repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Report. He said:
I also ask my hon. Friend to accept that I will be responsible to the House, and to Members on each side of it, if the system fails to meet the target"—
that is, the target for the average times. He continued:
I shall take a very close and personal interest in whether that target will be met. It will be in nobody's interest, least of all mine, to press the start button to begin the process and then to discover the applications are routinely not taking two months".—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 475.]
However, tonight, the Home Secretary is presenting us with exactly that scenario. He says that, come what may, he will press the start button and begin the process. I have not yet heard a single assurance from Ministers about whether they can meet the two months and the six months time limits that we were assured, over and over again, they would reach. The Home Secretary tried to claim that there was never any connection between the introduction of the support system and the time targets. However, the Home Office document, "Asylum Seekers Support", published in March 1999, states:
The proposed provision is set at 70 per cent. of the equivalent income support because the asylum support scheme is intended to be on a short-term basis, safety net arrangement, and it should be possible to live on these amounts for short periods only. 
There was much anxiety and concern about the support arrangements among my Labour colleagues and, over and over again, the Home Secretary reassured people that the

arrangements were meant to be only short term. However, he now wants to strike out Lords amendment No. 135, and he cannot provide us with a single, practical assurance that those targets will be met.

Mr. Straw: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I have provided a most important assurance, which I also gave on Report, that, in respect of families with children, we will not introduce the voucher-based system of support until we are clear that we are meeting—for most cases, although not for all cases, as I have always made clear—the two plus four target. Moreover—I am sorry if my hon. Friend did not hear what was said, because she was certainly present—we are already rolling out arrangements to fast-track families with children. I gave details about that in respect of the first 600 such people who had made applications in October.

Ms Abbott: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the concern is about the interim arrangements and what they will mean. I repeat to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench the concern about people whose cases are currently in the backlog. It is one thing to say that they will not be subject to false dispersal, but the transitional arrangements will have to be extremely carefully made, because although those people might not be subject to dispersal, they might lose their housing benefit. In practice, that would mean that they could no longer stay in their current homes.
I have only a few minutes in which to speak, but I put it to Ministers that, if their assurances about meeting the time targets for the resolution of those cases meant anything, they have nothing to fear from the thinking behind Lords amendment No. 135.
Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and say, wide-eyed, that they are putting time and effort into ensuring the right outcome. That might cut ice with Opposition Members who have no experience of the immigration and nationality directorate, for they do not know about the disastrous introduction of the new computer system or about the boxes of unopened files. However, after 12 long years dealing with the IND as a Member of Parliament, I wanted to hear broader assurances. Yes, families will not move straight to the voucher system, but what about single persons? What about the interim arrangements?
The amendment deals with the practicalities of the legislation and the potential to implement it fairly and efficiently. I know that many of my hon. Friends are now poised to troop through the Lobby in support of the Government, but I predict that the Bill will be like the Child Support Act 1991 in the following respect: before too long, it will be hard to find Labour Members who have any clear recollection of ever having supported it.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I welcome amendment (a), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), which makes much more sense than Lords amendment No. 135, which was proposed by the Lord Bishop of Southwark and accepted in another place. The message to all asylum applicants, genuine or otherwise, should not be of the continued availability of cash benefits, but of the Government having to live up to their promises of putting in place, in good working order, targeted systems for processing applications. That is why my right hon. Friend is right to try to place the Home Secretary under a clear obligation to deliver on his promises of greater efficiency.
If there were time, I would make a further suggestion to the Home Secretary, which is that—

It being twenty-two minutes past Eight o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order this day.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 60.

Division No. 316
10. 22 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cooper, Yvette


Ainger, Nick
Corbett, Robin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corston, Jean


Alexander, Douglas
Cousins, Jim


Allen, Graham
Cranston, Ross


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cummings, John


Ashton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Atkins, Charlotte



Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bayley, Hugh
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Beard, Nigel
Dalyell, Tarn


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Darvill, Keith


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dawson, Hilton


Berry, Roger
Dean, Mrs Janet


Best, Harold
Dismore, Andrew


Betts, Clive
Dobbin, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Donohoe, Brian H


Blears, Ms Hazel
Doran, Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Dowd, Jim


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Drew, David


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Borrow, David
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradshaw, Ben
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Browne, Desmond
Flint, Caroline


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Burgon, Colin
Follett, Barbara


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foster, Michael J(Worcester)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gardiner, Barry


Caplin, Ivor
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Casale, Roger
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caton, Martin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chapman, Ben (WirralS)
Godsiff, Roger


Chaytor, David
Goggins, Paul


Clapham, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coaker, Vernon
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Connarty, Michael
Hanson, David





Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mackinlay, Andrew


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McNulty, Tony


Healey, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McWalter, Tony


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McWilliam, John


Hepburn, Stephen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Heppell, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hesford, Stephen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hill, Keith
Marshall, David (ShetMeston)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hoey, Kate
Martlew, Eric


Home Robertson, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hood, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Merron, Gillian


Hope, Phil
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hopkins, Kelvin
Miller, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Moffatt, Laura


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howells, Dr Kim
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Humble, Mrs Joan
Mountford, Kali


Hurst, Alan
Mudie, George


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jenkins, Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Alan (Hull & Hessle)
Norris, Dan


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)



O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pearson, Ian


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pendry, Tom


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pertiam, Ms Linda


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pickthall, Colin


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pike, Peter L


Kemp, Fraser
Plaskitt, James


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pollard, Kerry


Khabra, Piara S
Pond, Chris


Kidney, David
Pope, Greg


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pound, Stephen


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Laxton, Bob
Primarolo, Dawn


Lepper, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Leslie, Christopher
Purchase, Ken


Levitt, Tom
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Quinn, Lawrie


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rapson, Syd


Linton, Martin
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lock, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Love, Andrew
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McAvoy, Thomas
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McCabe, Steve
Rooker, Jeff


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Rowlands, Ted


McDonagh, Siobhain
Roy, Frank


Macdonald, Calum
Ruane, Chris


McFall, John



McIsaac, Shona
Ruddock, Joan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)






Salter, Martin
Timms, Stephen


Sarwar, Mohammad
Tipping, Paddy


Savidge, Malcolm
Todd, Mark


Sawford, Phil
Touhig, Don


Shaw, Jonathan
Trickett, Jon


Sheerman, Barry
Truswell, Paul


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Ward, Ms Claire


Snape, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Soley, Clive
Watts, David


Southworth, Ms Helen
White, Brian


Spellar, John
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wicks, Malcolm


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
(Swansea W)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Williams, Alan W(E Carmarthen)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wills, Michael


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wilson, Brian


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Winntek, David


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stringer, Graham
Woolas, Phil


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Worthington, Tony


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wray, James


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Allan, Richard
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Baker, Norman
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ballard, Jackie
Keetch, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Beggs, Roy



Berth, Rt Hon A J
Kirkwood, Archy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Livingstone, Ken


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Brake, Tom
Llwyd, Elfyn


Brand, Dr Peter
McAllion, John


Breed, Colin
McDonnell, John


Burnett, John
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Burstow, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Moore, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Chidgey, David
Öpik, Lembit


Clwyd, Ann
Rendel, David


Cohen, Harry
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Coleman, Iain
Salmond, Alex


Corbyn, Jeremy
Sanders, Adrian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Skinner, Dennis


Fearn, Ronnie
Stunell, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Swinney, John


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Webb, Steve


Gerrard, Neil
Welsh, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
Willis, Phil


Hancock, Mike
Wise, Audrey


Harris, Dr Evan
Tellers for the Noes:


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Sir Robert Smith and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Donald Gorrie.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 3, to insert the following new clause—Accommodation for those temporarily admitted or released from detention—

(". The Secretary of State may provide, or arrange for the provision of, facilities for the accommodation of persons—

(a) temporarily admitted to the United Kingdom under paragraph 21 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act;
(b) released from detention under that paragraph; or
(c) released on bail from detention under any provision of the Immigration Acts. ")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment (a) and Lords amendment No. 329.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support amendment (a), which relates to an amendment first introduced in the House of Lords. I ask the House to pay attention to the debate as this issue was never raised when the Bill was on the Floor of this House.
The issue was not raised during the Bill's passage through the House and was mentioned for the first time when the legislation was on Report in the other place. To put it bluntly, the issue is whether we should introduce a new power of house arrest specifically for people who come to this country seeking asylum. Such people would have no convictions for any offence. They would be detained through no actions of their own. They would have no record of absconding. They would do nothing more than arrive on our shores. Should people who come to Britain thinking that we are the home of liberty be told that they may stay, but only on the condition that their liberty is restricted immediately?
There are two hugely important interrelated issues surrounding this new clause and the amendment that my hon. Friend and I have tabled. First, how do we justify detaining people in this country and how will we add new powers of detention? Secondly, how do we treat people who come to this country as refugees? How do we treat those who have decided that this is the place where they will seek sanctuary? What signals should we send? What is Britain's reputation in this area?
It is no coincidence that I can commend to hon. Members an article that appears on page 19 of today's edition of The Guardian—I shall refer to it only briefly. The article, entitled "Welcome them", is written by the director of the King's Fund, Rabbi Julia Neuberger, and is about refugees. She begins the article by relating her family's experience, and states:
My mother, my uncle, one set of grandparents, and innumerable other relations, came to the UK as refugees from Hitler's Germany in the 1930s…
That childhood made me realise something of what it is to be a refugee, to be torn from your home, to feel grateful for asylum, to think of 'home' as more than one place, to yearn for one's country of birth, despite one's resentment and anger at it, as one grows old. 


She continues:
The devil is in the detail"—
of the Bill that we are debating tonight—
but refugees and asylum seekers have not always been a popular group. That is why it is essential that parliament takes a very close look at this bill, and distinguishes between measures designed to deter false asylum seekers and those which will have a harmful effect on genuine refugees, who have surely suffered enough already. 
Rabbi Neuberger concludes by making the point—which was mentioned across the House, in Committee and in another place—that Britain has gained hugely from people who have come here as refugees. Many of our great academic talents were refugees; many innovators in the field of science this century were refugees from Europe and from further afield. If we agree to the new clause introduced by the Government in the Lords without the amendment that my hon. Friend and I suggest, we risk putting off other refugees who may come to this country from the former Yugoslavia, the horn of Africa or elsewhere.
Current immigration laws are technical—and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me. In the other place, Ministers got into a terrible muddle describing what they were seeking to achieve. They introduced amendments on Report and agreed that it would be better to take amendment No. 1 first and to consider the consequential amendment to it in a later debate. Ministers then withdrew the second amendment and reintroduced it on Third Reading, pushing it through against the strong advice of a House of Lords Select Committee.
I turn now to what the Bill proposes. It adds to the existing powers in the Immigration Act 1971 which allow people to be detained. Paragraph 21 of schedule 2 of that Act says:
A person liable to detention or detained under paragraph 16 above may, under the written authority of an immigration officer, be temporarily admitted to the United Kingdom without being detained or be released from detention; but this shall not prejudice a later exercise of the power to detain him.
However, the paragraph continues:
So long as a person is at large in the United Kingdom by virtue of this paragraph, he shall be subject to such restrictions as to residence"—
and to employment or occupation—
and as to reporting to the police or an immigration officer as may from time to time be notified to him in writing by an immigration officer. 
There are, therefore, existing powers under the 1971 Act.
The Government advise us that all that the Act allows by way of detention is that which
is necessary to maintain contact and prevent absconding".
However, that is never made clear in the Act or anywhere else. The Government have introduced a new clause in amendment No. 1, which says:
The Secretary of State may provide, or arrange for the provision of, facilities for the—
this is rather disingenuously put—
accommodation of persons…temporarily admitted to the United Kingdom under paragraph 21…released from detention under that paragraph; or…released on bail from detention under any provision of the Immigration Acts. 

That clause does not reveal what is behind the proposal. One must look to Lords amendment No. 329, which amends schedule 13 of the Bill. It says:
The provisions that may be included in restrictions as to residence imposed under sub-paragraph (2) include provisions of such a description as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. 
That points towards regulations to be laid in the future.
The amendment continues:
The regulations may"—
it does not say that they must—
among other things, provide for the inclusion of provisions".
That means that the regulations are not limited to those provisions, but they may include them. They may be provisions
prohibiting residence in one or more particular areas",
or
requiring the person concerned to reside in accommodation provided under
the relevant section of the Bill, and
prohibiting him from being absent from that accommodation except in accordance with the restrictions imposed on him.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): It seems reasonable.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister says that it seems reasonable, but if Ministers are saying that it is reasonable to put newly arrived asylum seekers under house arrest for no reason other than that they have arrived here, the Government stand condemned by their own definition of what is reasonable. We cannot argue that the provisions are reasonable, and the Government should not argue that they are reasonable. The Select Committee in the House of Lords which considered the Bill certainly did not believe that the provisions were reasonable. Why, then, are they before us?
The Minister said that the aim of the provisions is
to prevent potential public order problems".
So we are going to lock up or put under house arrest asylum seekers to prevent public order problems. But who is likely to cause such problems? As I understand it, public order problems this summer have not, by and large, been caused by asylum seekers, but have stemmed from the reaction of others to asylum seekers. Public order problems are not often caused by people who arrive with their children from a country far away, with no money but with the hope that they will be received. They are caused by people who think that there may be an invasion behind asylum seekers. That is dangerous enough, but the Government say that the measure is necessary to allow full and rapid consideration of asylum seekers' claims and to enable rapid decisions to be taken, in days rather than weeks. For that, flexible provisions are needed.
10. 45 p
My colleagues and I have tabled a simple amendment. We do not like the original amendment. We simply tried to get the House to recognise that if we are to introduce the measure, there should be a limit on the time for which it applies. All we are asking is that while his application is looked into, an asylum seeker with no previous record of offending and no previous visits to the United Kingdom


should not be required, by regulations that we have not seen, to be under house arrest for more than 10 days. That should be long enough for someone to decide his status and how to deal with him.
Ministers were put on the defensive by peers in many corners of their lordships' House. I pay tribute to those from the Liberal Democrat Benches, including the Baroness Williams, the Lords Avebury and Goodhart—Lord Goodhart particularly, with his legal experience—and the Earl Russell. The Government said that the asylum seekers would be free to come and go, but on further exploration it turns out that that means free to come and go only during the day. At night they will be back at base, wherever base is, and in whatever form of detention will be decided for them.
Not only could asylum seekers be under detention at night, but—this is the real criticism—the power can continue indefinitely. The contributions of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and others in the previous debate are relevant. If we pass the amendment unaltered by our amendment, we shall give a power allowing people to be detained indefinitely, placed under house arrest indefinitely and restricted indefinitely, while their claims are processed. The hon. Lady knows, as do I and anyone who deals every day with immigration cases, that the promise that a claim will be dealt with quickly, even if the promise is made in a letter or a telephone call and sometimes even if it is made by a Minister, does not necessarily mean that the claim is dealt with quickly.
Colleagues in the other place tried to explore ways in which the amendment might be restricted. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which considered the proposal, said that it was a form of house arrest. That is the Select Committee's phrase; it is not a party political phrase. The Select Committee suggested that various amendments should be made by the Government. First, it suggested that the purpose of the restriction should be specified in the Bill—for example, that it is in the interests of public order. No purpose is specified in the Bill, which makes it a dangerously wide provision. Secondly, the Select Committee suggested that if the amendment is justified, it should be for a single purpose. There is no such restriction in the Bill. Thirdly, the Select Committee argued that the restrictions must be reasonable, and that that should be specifically stated. Nothing in the Bill provides that natural justice qualification.
The Government did make two concessions. They conceded that the measure would have to be compatible with article 3 of the European convention on human rights, and that a Minister would have to certify that it was compatible. However, imagine if someone is placed, we know not where, and told that he cannot go out at night and that he must stay there. Even after next autumn, when the European convention on human rights is part of English law, as my colleagues and I have wanted for many years, is it reasonable that it should be up to an asylum seeker to apply to the courts to rule whether he should be held?
Should that be the way in which we conduct our business? Should the assumption be that a newly arrived refugee should have to go to court to establish his rights? My colleagues and I think not. Although the Government

have made concessions, enforcing the provision's human rights compatibility may be much more difficult than envisaged. It is sometimes difficult enough for hon. Members to enforce their rights. If we think that that will be easy for people arriving with no English, no money and no knowledge of British systems, we are deceiving ourselves.
Lords amendment No. 329 asks for regulations to be made by affirmative resolution. The Government have agreed and we welcome that.
Tonight, for the first time, we are being asked to consider a new clause and a new schedule. For the first time, we will introduce into British law a new form of specialised detention, different from the 1971 Act and different from all the other provisions

Mr. Bob Russell: A curfew.

Mr. Hughes: As my hon. Friend says, it will effectively be a curfew; a curfew for asylum seekers. It could be more than a curfew; it could restrict a person to specific accommodation for an indefinite period. I hope that the House will support the amendment to ensure that that period, if we have to have it, should be limited to a maximum of 10 days. I hope that the House will say that it is not enough for the Government to resist the amendment on the basis of what will happen if a person leaves the country after 10 days, only to return. The answer to that is that the 10 days will begin to run again.
I also hope that the House will say that it is not enough to trust the Government on legislation that has been introduced at the last moment and criticised by Select Committees, and which lacks adequate definition. The job of Parliament is to make sure that we get the law right rather than trust the Government. It will be too late when people discover that, as from tomorrow, Britain has new detention powers, new curfews and new powers of house arrest. I hope that the Government accept the amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): It might be for the convenience of the House if I say that I shall accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) to Lords amendment No. 139, to which we shall come later.
I start on a note of agreement with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Much of what he said was completely wrong, and I shall seek to convince him and the House of the error of his ways, but he is right to talk of Britain's proud history of accepting genuine asylum seekers; of granting refugees that status. He is also right to talk about the enormous contribution, not only over the years but over a vast period, that refugees have made to Britain's public, social and economic life.
But nothing is more devaluing than the rise in the number of applications that are completely ill-founded. Like me, the hon. Gentleman is a London Member of Parliament, and we are well aware of the situation. The greatest enemy of the genuine asylum seeker is the unfounded application.
The purpose of their lordship's amendments, taken together, is to provide a power to extend by regulation the residence conditions which may be imposed when those seeking leave to enter or remain in Britain are given temporary admission.


As the House will be aware—we discussed this at length earlier today—there has been a substantial increase in asylum applications at our ports and in-country. The average number of applications each month from July to September was nearly 7,000, about 60 per cent. higher than for the same period in 1998. The majority of those applications—about two thirds—will not qualify for refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. A number of those refused will have made claims that are manifestly unfounded. We believe that, subject to providing full opportunity to examine the individual circumstances of each case, action is needed to ensure that such claims are resolved more quickly. If there is a point on which every Member of the House is absolutely agreed this evening, it is that we have to speed up the system. We have to take that challenge on board.

Mr. Gerrard: If facilities are to be used by people whose asylum claims are manifestly unfounded, and if they may be expected to live at such facilities from the moment that they make an application, who will judge whether a claim is manifestly unfounded and on what basis will such a judgment be made?

Mrs. Roche: I think that my hon. Friend is talking about the reception centre that we shall establish in the new year. I shall come on to that. Since taking on my new ministerial responsibilities, I have spent a long time at our ports listening to some of the claims and it is quite clear fairly early on which applications can be dealt with speedily and which will clearly take longer to process.
My hon. Friend has brought me on to my next point—our recently announced plans to establish a reception centre at Oakington, near Cambridge, to help to deal with those claims on which it appears that a rapid decision can be taken. Such applicants will be required to stay at the centre for a short period—about seven days—while their claim is decided. However, I want to impress on the House that the arrangements at Oakington do not depend on or reflect the provision of the amendments. Applicants will be required to stay at Oakington under existing immigration powers to detain. A purpose of the amendments is to enable us to develop a wider range of options and, if necessary, different reception arrangements to deal with a range of circumstances.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has made it clear that the Oakington proposals are different. I understand that, which is why I did not refer to them. If the Government plan to use present law and will use Oakington or anywhere else for reception purposes, why do they not at least consider whether present law may be sufficient before—to use her words—they extend the arrangements to provide a wider range of powers? The danger is that the powers will be so wide that they will be a threat to liberty rather than helpful to the Government.

Mrs. Roche: I disagree; the proposed powers are not a threat to liberty and, if the hon. Gentleman contains his impatience a little longer, I shall describe them. Given the situation that we face, he will appreciate that the Bill must provide a range of options so that we can deal with different circumstances. I shall explain to him exactly why we need the amendments.
Lords amendment No. 1 does not deal with the question whether additional powers to impose such residence conditions should be available. It simply provides a clear

statutory basis for the provision of accommodation by the Secretary of State to persons on temporary admission. In that sense, it is consequential on Lords amendment No. 329, which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) discussed in his opening remarks. On that amendment, there is already power under the Immigration Act 1971 to impose residence conditions on those granted temporary admission, but our legal advice is that, as currently framed, those restrictions should be the ones necessary to maintain contact and prevent absconding. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman said.
The objectives are important, but too narrow. The problems created by the large influx of asylum seekers over the summer months suggest that we might need wider powers to impose residence conditions, which are necessary not just to maintain contact but to prevent potential public order problems. That applies not to just one section of applicants but to everybody. It is rightly a role for Government to relieve pressure on local services or to ensure full and rapid consideration of claims.

11 pm

Mr. Gapes: I seek clarification. Is my hon. Friend saying that, in order to make a dispersal policy work, it is necessary to implement the new provision, and that it is not possible to implement a dispersal policy on the basis of existing regulations?

Mrs. Roche: The matters are different. The dispersal policy clearly fits the asylum support arrangements that we are implementing. The power is designed for particular circumstances, so that there is some flexibility. I shall expand on my remarks.
Lords amendment No. 329 would enable regulations to prohibit residence in one or more areas by those on temporary admission. I should make it absolutely clear to the House and to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—if I may have his attention—that we do not envisage using the power routinely. We envisage using it only to relieve extreme pressures on certain areas in extreme circumstances.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am concerned that the reception centres envisaged, especially Oakington, which is not near any expert immigration advice centre, might have high concentrations of asylum seekers who do not necessarily have access to either appropriate health care facilities or qualified expert legal advice. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, if there are to be such facilities, she will guarantee that the residents in them have access to legal advice from properly qualified people, and to health care?

Mrs. Roche: I am happy to give my hon. Friend, who I know takes a very close interest and has great expertise in these matters, my full assurance. We shall certainly provide such services and we are already in discussion about them. It is very important that both services are available.

Mr. Clappison: I apologise for not being present for the beginning of the debate. Has the Minister consulted the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, and if so, what did it say?

Mrs. Roche: We have certainly spoken to the Refugee Council and the Refugee Legal Centre. We hope to get


the centre up and running by the new year. We shall certainly ensure that we consult all voluntary organisations that have an interest.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I should like to put two points to the Minister; one follows the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). First, if the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture has not yet been consulted, will she assure the House that it will be? That was one of the issues that came up in the Special Standing Committee; I know that there is a fund of Government good will on it. Secondly, will she confirm that she and her advisers had not thought of the new provisions, particularly those in Lords amendment No. 329, when the Bill was previously before the House of Commons, and that they are not trying to ambush the Bill? How much of the proposal is designed to he a deterrent, how much is designed to prevent absconding and how much is to do with what one might call public order?

Mrs. Roche: We are of course very anxious to consult. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have very good relationships with the voluntary sector, which has been very helpful on the voluntary arrangements. Of course we want to ensure that we keep in close touch with it. In fact, I have made it perfectly clear to representatives of the Refugee Legal Centre and the Refugee Council that they are very welcome to visit Oakington. We shall allow that visit to be made as soon as we are able.
We have seen a change in the process of asylum seeking since the Bill began its passage. It is right that when a complex Bill of this nature is under consideration, the Government should keep under constant review exactly what is going on, and what flexibility we need to build in.
I was talking to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about the power that we are discussing in connection with the Lords amendment that he seeks to amend. That power applies to people who have been granted temporary admission to this country. Temporary admission is not a form of leave to enter, and that is an important legal factor to keep in mind.
In law, temporary admission is an alternative to detention while someone's application to stay is being considered, or pending their return abroad. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that where the maintenance of public order or viable public services requires, we should be able to prohibit such people from residing in certain areas.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Lady is normally very direct in her speech, and explains clearly what she has in mind. Why is she talking so elliptically tonight, and speaking in riddles about threats to public order? What are those threats to which she keeps referring as if they were self-evident? My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has made it plain that refugees, whether individually or even in the numbers that she has mentioned as having arrived this summer, do not constitute a threat to public order. Wherein is the mischief that she seeks to remedy?

Mrs. Roche: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, which I will treat as a compliment. Usually

people do not say that I speak directly, they simply say that I am the opposite of subtle—in other words, that I am blunt. That apart, the right hon. Gentleman knows full well what the situation has been this summer. One does not seek to blame any group, but it is undeniable that there has been tension in some parts of the country. It is wrong for him to deny that. It is no good for asylum seekers themselves to enter a situation in which there could be difficulties.
We are talking about use in certain circumstances, not routine use, of a power that could be very useful. Clearly this is a sensitive area; I do not pretend that it is not. The right hon. Gentleman must be realistic about the situation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Lords amendment was introduced after the summer recess—presumably as a reaction to a perception that there were public order problems in Kent. We have no evidence that that was the reason, but it must be the presumption. Whom is the amendment intended to protect? The asylum seekers? The residents? If either of those, the idea that we need to take people who would otherwise be admitted, and have the power to put them collectively and indefinitely under house arrest, has never been justified by any argument either before or after the summer.

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman is not doing himself justice. We are not talking about house arrest. When we talk about public order and public protection, we are talking about protecting everybody. [Interruption.] One of the Liberal Democrats repeats, "Everybody?" Of course I mean everybody. We want to maintain good public order, but it is not for public order reasons alone that we need the flexibility; it is also to relieve the pressure on social services, which in some areas has been intense.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my hon. Friend envisage circumstances in which children will be accommodated in any of the facilities referred to in this debate?

Mrs. Roche: Yes, and I shall explain our plans for Oakington. It will be a reception centre for which we shall use our present powers under immigration legislation. It will provide accommodation for single people and for families. I can assure my hon. Friend that the accommodation for families will be separate. I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that health services will be available, as well as appropriate facilities for families and access to legal advice. We have no wish to divide families and we envisage that people will stay at the centre for only short periods—in their interest and in ours.

Mr. Corbyn: Can my hon. Friend confirm that Oakington will, in effect, be a detention centre, with all the powers that that implies, as well as security and guards? Although legal advice, social services and health care may be available, it will still be a detention centre, like Campsfield and the others.

Mrs. Roche: Yes, it will be a detention centre in terms of its designation. We have said that from the beginning and I have made it clear that we will use existing powers to run it. There will be security, but it will be very relaxed


and, in certain circumstances, people will be able to leave. In any event, people will stay for only short periods so that their applications can be processed.
I share a constituency boundary with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and we probably have similar casework, so he will know that the most important thing that we can do is speed up the application process. If people come here with manifestly unfounded claims, the worst thing that we could do is to keep them in the system for a long time. That is why it is important to deal with the claims speedily, and to deal with the people humanely. That is why we are providing Oakington on the basis I have outlined. Because it will be categorised as a detention centre, it will be subject to organised inspection visits under the new arrangements.

Dr. Lynne Jones: If my hon. Friend accepts that stays at Oakington will be short, why are the Government not prepared to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)? Can she also assure us that if any children are kept in such facilities for more than seven days, they will be allowed access to local schools and education?

Mrs. Roche: I shall deal later with amendment (a), but it is our aim to keep people at the centre for short periods only. If we want to use Oakington as a processing centre in terms of applications made by claimants, it is in our interests that people are there for a short time.
Lords amendment No. 329 would enable conditions to be imposed requiring a person to reside in accommodation provided by the Secretary of State. Those provisions do not relate in any way to the use of detention or what is proposed at Oakington. On the contrary, the aim of the amendment is to provide greater flexibility in the use of temporary admission. It would be possible, with the new powers that we seek, to develop reception facilities in which persons granted temporary admission would be required to reside, but where they would be free to come and go during the day as they wished. Applicants would be required to remain at the accommodation overnight and to be present at certain times for interview or other purposes, to enable prompt consideration of their claims. Residence would therefore be for short periods.
11. 15 pm
We believe that it is necessary to proceed with a power to make regulations. That is what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was talking about. The use of those powers would depend on changing events and pressures. One of the problems with the current system of control is that we cannot respond to the pace of events quickly or flexibly enough. The Bill is intended to provide a more modern, flexible system. The regulations will ensure that additional residence requirements are proportionate and relevant to the circumstances that may arise.
I want to mention again an important matter raised earlier by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, any regulations made must comply with the European convention on human rights, which would authorise the imposition of additional descriptions of the conditions only so far as they could be justified.
As I have said before, the Government recognise that this is a sensitive area. That is why we accept the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation that the regulations should be made subject to the affirmative procedure. It is absolutely right that they should be, as that will ensure that there is full and careful scrutiny of the use of the powers. Parliament will have to be satisfied that, wherever the powers are used, they are proportionate and necessary to achieve the stated objective.
As the Government announced in another place, Ministers moving regulations subject to the affirmative procedure will always inform the House about whether they are satisfied that the instrument is compatible with rights under the European convention.
I shall deal briefly with amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, which would limit single periods of residence at accommodation provided by the Secretary of State to a maximum of 10 days. It would not prevent someone from being required to reside at such accommodation for additional periods of up to 10 days, provided that those periods were not consecutive.
The whole purpose of the new provisions is to provide greater flexibility in the use of temporary admission. We must keep it in mind that we are talking about a requirement to reside in a particular place, but with a minimum of restrictions on a person's ability to come and go during the day. I do not believe that such requirements are onerous or unfair. Any restriction could be imposed only after approval by Parliament.

Mr. Simon Hughes: With respect, the Minister is saying nothing new. I have two questions for her. Why have the Government taken some of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, but not the others? Above all, why is she arguing for flexibility in the law——in the Act of Parliament that this Bill will become——when the purpose of legislation is to be clear so that people know where they stand? Never before has it been argued that we should have flexible legislation as opposed to flexible policy.

Mrs. Roche: I understand the point, but the Government will examine the recommendations from another place carefully to determine what we agree with. Given that this is such a sensitive area, we think that approach is the right one.

Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford): Is that the Minister's response?

Mrs. Roche: It is the only response that I shall give.

Mr. Keetch: It is not a very good one.

Mr. David Heath: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Roche: No. I apologise for having detained the House at some length, but I hope that I have dealt——

Mr. Heath: This is important.

Mrs. Roche: Okay, I will take one more intervention.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has been patient given the number of interventions. Her


argument for the amendment is that it will in some way prevent public disorder. Is she saying that the state of expectation of such disorder will extend beyond a 10-day period? In which case, I am sorry but I do not follow her argument.

Mrs. Roche: I do not want to be critical, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is muddled. We are talking about two different things. I appreciate that these are sensitive areas and that it is a difficult subject.
In conclusion, I must reinforce the fact that Oakington will be very different. There will be minimal physical security and a very relaxed regime. Case workers will be on the site to deal with applications. Clearly, that does not happen at detention centres at the moment.
To end as I began, it is in all our interests——the public, the House and claimants alike——to speed up the process, which is what the amendments are about.

Mr. Lidington: I share the Minister's concern about the need to reduce the backlogs as rapidly as possible and speed up decision taking. Given the number of applicants coming into the country at present, I sympathise with Ministers' desire to have additional powers to help them cope with the practical problems. Will the hon. Lady spell out in a little more detail the Government's approach to two matters that have not been adequately covered? If she is unable to explain that in her reply, perhaps she could do so later in correspondence. The first matter is the level of safeguards that the law would provide for people sent to particular places under the terms of the schedule. Secondly, will she throw a little more light on how the Government intend people to be selected to become subject to the new powers?
On safeguards, the Minister rightly drew a distinction between powers of detention under the Immigration Act 1971 and the new powers that would be introduced by the amendments. The powers in the 1971 Act are subject to various safeguards——inspections, a monitoring system, committees of visitors and statutory arrangements for disciplinary rules. The Bill provides that someone who is detained would have the right to bail hearings at appropriate times during detention.
While the Government have said consistently that the powers that they propose to introduce by regulation under Lords amendment No. 329 envisage a limited period of residence by an asylum seeker in a place designated by the Secretary of State, as I read the text of the schedule, it sets out no limit to the period of time that the right hon. Gentleman could require someone to live at a particular place. No minimum time seems to be provided for, other than that which the Minister chooses to include in regulations.
Also, it seems that someone could be detained for quite a long time without any sort of judicial oversight. On the face of things, that puts an asylum seeker held subject to those conditions, which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) described as a curfew, in an inferior position to that of someone held in formal detention.

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman mentioned curfew, but one of our major concerns is that Lords amendment

No. 329 talks about being prohibited from being absent. It says nothing about night time or day time. As we read it, it could mean any time at all. Our concern goes much wider than simply having a night time curfew.

Mr. Lidington: One problem is that the powers that Lords amendment No. 329 gives the Secretary of State are wide. We have had to rely on informal assurances from Ministers in both Houses for safeguards that are written into the law for people held in detention.
The Minister said that the Government would apply their obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 carefully in drafting the regulations to be introduced. I took her to mean that in place of safeguards being provided in the legislation, we are being invited tonight to trust to the Government's interpretation of their obligations under the European convention on human rights, that the Government will not introduce restrictions on personal liberty that would bring them into conflict with the convention and that that is what will give legal weight to the assurances of Ministers in another place. There are still questions that the Government need to answer on appropriate safeguards for people held in such circumstances.
I shall deal briefly with how people are to be selected for this procedure. In reply to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), I thought that the Minister implied that the decision would greatly depend on the assessment made at the port of entry by members of the immigration service of the ease with which a case could be determined. Can she confirm whether the Government intend that people should be selected on a case-by-case basis or whether they plan to put applicants from particular countries through the procedure?

Mrs. Roche: To elaborate on what I said, it will depend on the initial assessment of the immigration officer. If it appears that the case requires more detailed examination, we will ensure that that happens. Clearly, the ability to make such an initial assessment is incredibly helpful at the beginning of the process.

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful for that advice.
I refer the Minister to a comment made by the Attorney-General in another place that would again benefit from elucidation here. In discussing the powers, he said:
In the short term, some asylum seekers who may congregate in specific areas may still be on social security benefit. We want to have this power available. We do not envisage using the power on a routine basis, but only to relieve extreme pressures on specific areas in extreme circumstances. "——[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 736.]
As those who will be on social security benefit will be people who will have been admitted at a port at any time up to 31 March 2000, is it right to interpret the Attorney-General's remarks as meaning that the Government intend that the powers should be used to require people currently in receipt of social security living in one part of this country to move to a particular location in another area, and that this power should therefore be seen as an adjunct to the dispersal scheme that will come into force after 31 March next year?

Mr. McDonnell: There has been confusion in the debate in the House of Lords and even in this Chamber, to a certain extent, about the relationship of Oakington to the legislation. The Government need to take responsibility for that confusion. Lord Falconer said on 18 October:
We are examining the possibility of establishing a reception facility at which asylum seekers would reside while their claim was examined and a rapid decision taken…As such residences have a wider purpose, we believe that we need the wider power that amendment No. 289 and now amendment No. 329 provides. "——[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 1999; Vol. 605, c. 752.]
He confirmed that that was a power separate from the one to award bail on conditions.
However, by 2 November Lord Williams of Mostyn said:
I stress that the facility at Oakington is based on existing detention powers…it is designed to deal with claims where it appears that a rapid decision can be made…I repeat…that applicants will be required to stay at Oakington under existing immigration powers to detain. "——[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 733.]
We accept that Oakington is based on existing powers, but we should have had a statement to the House about its development. That would have avoided the confusion around the Bill and enabled us to have a thorough debate about Oakington. I am sure that, timing permitting, it would have given us the opportunity to air some of our concerns.
I have Harmondsworth detention centre in my constituency, and we all know some of the problems at Harmondsworth and Campsfield in terms of quality of life, possible abuses of human rights and physical abuse. Much good work has gone on in recent years to introduce procedures to protect the internees.
The problem with not having a debate specifically about Oakington on the basis of a statement is that we have not been able to question Ministers more thoroughly on safeguards. I would welcome the Minister's reconfirmation tonight of the safeguards that will be introduced at Oakington. For example, there should be similarity of treatment at all detention centres in terms of committees of visitors and access to legal advice——some assurances have been given on that tonight. It is vital that the voluntary organisations and others who provide legal advice be fully and adequately funded.

Mrs. Roche: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on committees of visitors. I repeat the assurance about legal advice. People will be in the centre for very short periods so that we can process their applications. The facilities that I mentioned will be there. We are actively consulting the voluntary sector.

Mr. McDonnell: I welcome those assurances and I understand the commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister and her team to ensuring that the period of detention is short. I accept that and I appreciate the Minister's record. I know it both in local and central Government to be one of success and adherence to her commitments. However, Ministers come and go. I am sure that there is a long career in other Departments and elsewhere for her, but we need further assurances in more

detailed regulations about the nature of the detention in Oakington and similar detention centres that may be developed.
We are entering a new phase of development which is neither the old detention centre nor some voluntary arrangement: it is something in between. It is an ill-defined ground. We need to define it more closely, admittedly, perhaps, in regulations. For example, a contract will be issued for the management of Oakington, most probably to a private company. We need assurances about the nature of that contract; that the Race Relations Act 1976 will be applied to the staff involved; that the staff will have defined duties; and that they will be subject to disciplinary procedures if they act against those defined duties. Again, because the new process falls between existing arrangements, we need to examine them more closely.
The provision of medical, psychiatric and educational facilities has already been raised. The right to freedom of worship and access to religious advisers is important to many detainees in the existing detention centres.

Mrs. Roche: I apologise to my hon. Friend for intervening yet again, but he raises the extremely important issue of access to religious worship. I assure him that we are actively planning to deal with that matter, and am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to make that point.

Mr. McDonnell: I respond with equal gratitude to my hon. Friend for that assurance.
As the Oakington proposal has not been thoroughly debated in this place, and has not been reported on in detail, there is a danger——if not under the Labour Government, then under other Governments——of the development of internment camps if migration to this country increases, for whatever reason. It thus behoves the Government to issue an early——possibly in the new Session——and thorough statement on the development of Oakington; to repeat the assurances that we have been given today; and to set out some more detailed regulations that we can debate at length. We could then be assured that this one-off scheme——as it is now described, although there could be further developments if we are not careful——is under rigorous public control and accountability.
It would have been helpful if we could have debated amendments such as these at an earlier point in the Bill's progress. I regret that the debate is occurring so late in the process, because of the great scale of the powers under the measures. There is an element of confusion. The most important issue is not the potential for house arrest; I am concerned as to the potential for hostel arrest. As we have seen in Europe, asylum seekers and refugees have been required to reside in a particular hostel, and such hostels have degenerated into what are almost internment camps. They have also become targets for racists and others.
Faced with problems in a specific area, it would be easy to go down that slippery slope. Heathrow is in my constituency, and I have problems that are similar in scale to those in Dover——especially with regard to unaccompanied children. I encounter all the racist backlash. We have all had our windows broken. In the early 1980s, when we had similar problems, broken glass was put into my child's sandpit. We have all had such


experiences. However, the reaction should be to stand firm and to argue our case——it should be to punish not the innocent but the perpetrators. That is what our policies on racial and domestic violence are designed to do.
If we accept the proposal in the amendment, we could go down the slippery slope of the establishment of a system in this country in which asylum seekers are placed in hostels by law, and that would undermine their ability to integrate in the longer term. I do not believe that all the cases are bogus——the figure of two thirds has been mentioned. However, in my constituency surgery, like many hon. Members, I have dealt with a large number of asylum seekers, many of whom tell horrendous and honest stories of the suffering that they have endured. After long and tortuous processing in this country, many of them have been given the right to remain here. The measure will make such people vulnerable, if we are not careful. It will lead to a diminution of people's basic human right to decide on where they live and on the community in which they feel secure.
At the moment, we need to stand back. I accept the Minister's assurance that the power will not be used routinely. However, the problem is that although I inherently trust this Minister, we need something more than the oral assurance that we received tonight. It is critical that the regulations be drafted soon and laid before the House, so that we can define the criteria on which the powers are to be used. We must define them in such a way as to ensure that their use does not become routine, but remains exceptional. The powers have been introduced to deal with a problem, but we should look at other powers to tackle the perpetrators of the problem.
The Bill has thrown up a range of issues. Some of us have watched recent television programmes about the debates surrounding the immigration legislation of the 1960s and 1970s. To be honest, that legislation was a cover to make racism respectable. Now, if we are not careful, we risk making respectable the targeting of asylum seekers and refugees. It is appropriate to debate measures such as the one before us, but in doing so we do not confront the perpetrators of racism. As long as we couch our debate in terms of large numbers of bogus asylum seekers swamping——to use the Thatcherite word——this country, we give in to the racists.
We should be arguing the case, as I know my hon. Friend the Minister of State does, for abiding by our commitments to human rights under the European convention and other international conventions, and for treating people who come to this country fairly and with respect. I do not believe that the Bill will do that. It introduces powers that undermine the fairness of our current system and reduce the respect we pay to asylum seekers and refugees. For that reason, I wish the House could agree with the Lords amendment, which would at least place some limitations, within the time scale set out by the Government, on the exercise of those powers. I hope that, when we debate the regulations, we will define the non-routine use of those powers.

Sir Teddy Taylor: 1 do not want to embarrass the Minister of State, but I should like to express my full support for her position. Although it would be a great threat to public safety, it might be a good idea to invite the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to

become Home Secretary for one week, so that we could see how he coped with a vast increase in the number of asylum seekers——individuals who, on coming here, are not treated with dignity or respect, but are dumped by some filthy London borough in seaside towns like Southend-on-Sea. If hon. Members think that I am wrong to say that, I invite them to come and see Southend. In Southend, the local council, officials and the local Member of Parliament are all concerned about promoting good race relations, but, believe me, if nothing is done about the problems, race relations will be undermined in a borough where such problems have never occurred previously.
It is reasonable to ask how many asylum seekers there are in Southend. The answer is that our excellent director of social services, a lady of great sympathy and understanding who is greatly concerned about maintaining good race relations, has not the slightest idea how many there are. We know how many cases have been directly referred to us, but we have no knowledge of the total number because other authorities, especially London authorities, have a habit of simply putting such persons in bed-and-breakfast establishments in Southend-on-Sea.
On the other hand, we do have figures for those attending local schools. I invite the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to visit the splendid Porters Grange school in Southend-on-Sea. The school serves an area of great social deprivation, lying in a ward with 20 per cent. unemployment. When I was at the school last week, I learned that children who could not speak a word of English were constantly being dumped there. Four more arrived last week: they were gypsy refugees from the former Czechoslovakia who face great violence in their home country. The schools in my constituency that have been landed with lots of children who speak no English have to start with basics, such as "This is a pen, " and then try to make progress.
Nothing is filthier than hearing the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) claim that the current crisis is all the fault of the previous Government. Those who try to blame any particular Government are kidding themselves. We have had a huge influx of political refugees, which has created problems not for the leafy London boroughs, but for the places where the asylum seekers land.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I may have to wait a week or two to become the Home Secretary, but in the meantime I am happy to take up the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit Southend. I hope that he had understood that the crucial point is not that London boroughs or other boroughs are dumping people on Southend, but that it is for Parliament to deal with people who come to our shores. Some of us are trying to get the legislation right, so that his community, my community and all others are able to integrate and deal with people who come here, in a way that means that people who are here before them do not feel that they are being dumped on them.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Quite frankly, I have not heard such rubbish in the House for a long time. I have been in this place for 35 years. I do not think that I have ever been so insulted in my life. I ask the hon. Gentleman——if thousands of people are coming in as political refugees,


what do we do? Is it not normal to say that we should try to find a way to spread them around, and not have them concentrated in particular areas, because that will not help good race relations? Apart from anything else, such concentrations are not good for schools, which are already having great difficulty in coping with a very difficult situation, if lots of children who do not speak a word of English are landed on them.
I hope that the Minister will advise me what is happening on the issue of immigration law relating to asylum seekers. I understand that the law in Britain differs from that in the other countries of the European Union, in that we have a law that a person can claim political asylum, first, if they are being persecuted by their Government and their safety is at risk; or secondly, if they are being persecuted by individuals within that country.
I understand that the law in France, Germany and other such countries is different, and that it refers only to a nation and not to the people. That has considerable implications, as we understand that, at a very recent meeting of the European nations, it was agreed that they would seek to harmonise legislation on political asylum. Will that mean that those who are persecuted as individuals will thereby lose their entitlement to political asylum? That could have a very substantial impact on people who come here from, for example, the former Czechoslovakia. They are not being persecuted by their Government, but are being subjected to appalling persecution because they are gypsies and because people there have a low regard for them.
The Minister's proposal for special accommodation is sensible. First, I wish that those who are uneasy about that proposal would ask themselves what the alternative is. The alternative is not that, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) said, people are looking for a place where they feel safe and happy; they are simply dumped in seaside towns.
Secondly, we have to ask, "What are the consequences of the present policy for good race relations?" I would ask anyone who is in doubt to telephone Miss Jane Held, who is not a right winger——at present, the council in Southend happens to be controlled by Labour and Liberals, with a majority of one over the Conservatives. Miss Held is in no sense looking for trouble, but she rightly says that, when asylum seekers are concentrated in one area, groups of young men congregate, which, unfortunately, leads to trouble. It has led to trouble in Southend-on-Sea. Those who try to pretend that there is no problem are kidding themselves.
If we want to preserve good race relations in this country and protect asylum seekers, the most obvious thing to do, as the Minister said, is to speed up decision making. The second thing to do is to ensure that we spread the people around as far as is reasonably possible, and do not have concentrations in certain areas in seaside towns. It does not help the individuals.
I have had the pleasure of meeting quite a few asylum seekers at my weekly surgeries in Southend. Some of them are rather unusual people, some seem very pathetic and some seem very sad. Obviously, the crucial thing for them is for a decision to be reached on their case as quickly as possible, but if there is not some organisation——some control of the situation——all that will happen is that, in places such as Southend, where, happily, we have good, harmonious race relations, trouble may

well start. Any move by the Government to give the impression that they are trying to speed up decision making and trying to take control of the situation will be good, not only for Southend, but for the asylum seekers.
Our liberal, pleasant and gracious asylum laws were designed in times when only a small number of people applied for asylum. Now, we are faced with thousands of applicants. If we do nothing, both those who are genuine and those who are not will continue to be concentrated in particular places. Unless something is done, we shall not help asylum seekers in any way. I do not favour having a single place, but special accommodation would be a worthwhile and positive response that would help both asylum seekers and the promotion of good race relations in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maclennan: My case has already been eloquently made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). I disagreed only with his thinking that this obnoxious new clause should be allowed on to the statute book. I would not rely on the possibility of enlightenment ever dawning on the Government's Front-Bench team before the subordinate legislation is introduced. If Ministers will not listen to the hon. Gentleman's appeal tonight, why should we expect them to change their minds in the weeks or months ahead?
The Minister of State's refusal or failure to answer questions about what mischief she seeks to remedy——she evaded giving answers by talking repeatedly about the sensitivity of the situation——was dealt with by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) with his usual eloquent directness. He displayed, in all its ugliness, what the new clause is really about. It is a response to pressures, which ought to be resisted, of the type identified by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, who lives in a far more explosive situation than does the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East. Such a response can be effective only if people are prepared to stand up to those who threaten communities with illegal actions.
It is unacceptable that a statute should be justified by the fear that its absence would encourage illegality. That stands logic on its head. We cannot rely on assurances by Ministers about how legislation might be used. Nor can we rely on their present intentions. Successive Home Secretaries have intended to speed up consideration of applications by refugees and asylum seekers, but those intentions have not been realised. There is no reason to believe that the Minister or her colleagues can wave a wand that will solve the problems overnight.

Mr. Gapes: I am not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman favours or opposes a dispersal policy, and should be grateful if he would clarify his position. Does he favour an attempt to take pressure off my borough and others in London, and off council areas in Kent and elsewhere? Those areas have serious housing shortages and other problems. That is a fact, and I am not making any racist or inflammatory remark, but I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would clarify his position.

Mr. Maclennan: Of course I favour taking the pressure off, but it must be done by devoting the necessary resources to processing applications speedily, not by sweeping problems under the carpet with this new clause.


The Minister's case has gone by default. She has not deigned to answer a single question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about the reasons for the new clause. She spoke about sensitivity, using the word, I think, seven times as a verbal evasion of reality. She has absolutely refused to describe the situation that the new clause is supposed to cover.
I repeat the appeal of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington: do not punish the innocent; stand firm against illegality. I thought that the hon. Lady would be particularly sensitive to that appeal as she has a record of concern about such matters. The change in her position should not change her attitude. It sounded tonight as though the hon. Lady was resiling from the kind of commitment that she has shown in the past to tackling effectively the problems of refugees.

Mrs. Roche: I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he is doing the House a disservice. I said that, as far as public order is concerned, we are seeking to protect everybody. That is clearly what one does in public order situations. The right hon. Gentleman has closed his eyes to the real situation: he is making assertions that are completely unrealistic and have nothing to do with the debate.

Mr. Maclennan: With respect, those who oppose the Government's measures should not have to justify them using their arguments. 1 believe it lies with the Minister to explain the mischief that she apprehends. However, she has not done that. She evaded the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, she did not reply to my intervention and she has not intervened during the debate to explain the public order concerns.
If there is a threat of public disorder, the law should be turned not against innocent refugees or asylum seekers in this country, but against those who threaten it. The hon. Lady may shake her head, but, if she cannot understand that, she should stop posing as the friend of those who seek protection under the laws of this country from oppression and tyranny elsewhere.

Mr. Gerrard: I will be brief. I had not intended to speak in this debate, but the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and other hon. Members have left me more confused about exactly what is proposed by the amendment and for Oakington than I was at the beginning of the evening.
There is some confusion regarding Oakington and the proposed new clause. It would help if we could have a clear statement to the House about Oakington in the near future in order to separate it from the new clause. Even the regulations covered by Lords amendment No. 329 to schedule 13 will not tell us anything about Oakington, which will be run under existing detention powers. I repeat the plea for an urgent, clear statement about Oakington and how it will function. We have received some assurances in that regard, which I welcome.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point. I hope that he accepts that, through

our specific amendment to the Bill, the Liberal Democrats are trying to put to one side the Oakington proposal, which comes under existing legislation. We are seeking to make the case that, unless someone can show why we need different legislation for different arrangements, we should not go further down that road until we know what Oakington will deliver.

Mr. Gerrard: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I suspect that some people listening to the debate may think that the 10-day limit proposed in the hon. Gentleman's amendment would apply to Oakington, even though it would not. The issue of how long people remain in Oakington will be determined by the administration of Oakington, and that decision will be influenced by factors such as whether bail applications are accepted and so on. The way in which Oakington has been described makes me fear that it will be used for people who will be fast-tracked by short-term, quick decisions and people who come in from particular ports and particular countries. That sounds suspiciously like a new form of white list.
12 midnight
The first line of Lords amendment No. 1 says:
The Secretary of State may provide, or arrange for the provision of, facilities for the accommodation of persons…temporarily admitted to the United Kingdom",
and so on. It seems to me that the powers that flow from that amendment could apply to any asylum seeker in the new support system because although their accommodation may not have been provided directly by the Secretary of State, he will have arranged for the provision of the facilities.
Lords amendment No. 329 refers to provisions requiring the person to reside in such accommodation and prohibiting them from being absent, and I find it difficult to square that with some of what we were told on Third Reading. We were told that if people had an offer of accommodation and support, but said that they wanted to live elsewhere, the Home Office would accept that, provided that they were living at a registered address, and they could then accept only the support package.
Those assurances about elements of choice within the support system are difficult to square with the possibility of much more draconian impositions on people. As I read it, Lords amendment No. 1 could apply to anyone in the support system, whether they are temporarily admitted to the UK, have come out of detention or been released on bail from detention. That worries me, and I should be grateful for clarification on that point.
In conclusion, I return to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. It is clear to anyone who reads the Official Report of the debates in the Lords that there is enormous confusion about how what Ministers are saying relates to Home Office press releases. Unfortunately, the issue of Oakington arose at roughly the same time and became mixed up in the debate about the new powers. A clear statement on Oakington would be helpful because that is not a matter to which we will be able to return when we consider regulations made under Lords amendment No. 329.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: It is a pity that, as the hon. Member who represents Oakington,


it is after midnight when I am given the opportunity to say something about my constituency and the circumstances there.
In defence of Ministers, I point out that when the announcement about Oakington was made, I was under no illusions that the centre was other than a centre established under existing Immigration Act powers. That much, at least, was said. It would have been much simpler if, on 21 October when the press release was issued, the Home Office had said that the centre would be designated as a detention centre and established under existing powers. It would then have been perfectly obvious that the safeguards for Oakington that we have, quite properly, been pressing on the Minister this evening would flow from such a designation.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that when one reads the House of Lords debate, it was perfectly unclear, even as late as Third Reading, what was the character of Oakington, who would be there, how it was to be designated and even how it was to be described. Even though the legal basis for the establishment of the centre at Oakington may be perfectly clear, that tells us remarkably little about what will be the regime at Oakington. That is the more pertinent question this evening. It is clear that the scale will be substantial. Ministers speak of up to 400 asylum seekers being present there for up to seven days. Indeed, I have heard references to a larger number, as I am told that the capacity is greater than that.
On the basis of present figures, one in four or a greater proportion of asylum seekers could be held at Oakington for a period. The character of the regime provided there is therefore an important consideration. We have been through some relevant matters, and the Minister has leapt swiftly to the Dispatch Box to say, for example, that legal advice will be available or that it will be possible to maintain religious worship. However, we have not dealt with these matters in detail.
It matters a great deal to those at Oakington whether the legal advice available is the same as that which would be available under other circumstances. The Minister knows perfectly well that Oakington is not in an area where there is large-scale independent legal advice for refugees and asylum seekers.

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are keen that people residing at Oakington have full access to independent legal advice, and we are having discussions with the Refugee Legal Centre about what could be established.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for that further assurance. I am sure that the Refugee Council, the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service will all be listening carefully to the debate. If legal advice is not accessible, we will quickly find out.
My argument extends more widely. The Oakington centre is to be established in an area where there is no existing infrastructure of support for a significant number of refugees. East Anglia was not identified as a cluster area for dispersal of asylum seekers when the Government made their previous announcement. It should, by extension, be assumed that none of the infrastructure of support in the local community which would normally be looked for in a dispersal area is available in Cambridgeshire.
if resources are to be made available, they must be made available additionally, whether in support for families—it is clear that families, including children will be present—or through legal advice or medical and other facilities. I shall not detain the House, but it should be put on the record that if all those pressures fall on the local community, they cannot be accommodated readily with the resources available to Cambridgeshire as a local authority in respect of social services, because of child protection issues; as a health authority, because of the rapid rate of population growth; and as a police authority, about which I have been writing to the Home Secretary in recent weeks.
Despite all that the Minister and her colleagues in another place have said, it is still unclear what sort of people are to be held at Oakington. What does that tell us about the requirement for security and support? I have dwelt for the moment on safeguards and support for those who are present, but if Oakington is designated as a detention centre, many of my constituents are aware of the experience of other detention centres, and they will feel that something that they do not understand and which raises serious physical security issues is being established in their midst.

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the press release and his understanding of what was proposed for Oakington. In the third paragraph of the press release that I issued, we made it clear that applicants will be required to reside at Oakington under existing immigration powers for initial examination of their claim. We could not be more direct and open about the situation.

Mr. Lansley: When the Minister checks the record, she will find that that is precisely what I said. In the press release, she made it clear that the centre would be established using existing Immigration Act powers. What the Minister did not say in the press release was that Oakington would be designated as a detention centre, which would have made it simpler for everyone to examine the safeguards that flow from that designation. However, I do not want to rehearse what I said earlier, which still stands.
The Minister and I will be in correspondence and, if the Minister listens to her hon. Friends, we will have another opportunity to question the form of the regime that is to be established. If it is to start in the new year, and a contract is to be let to resolve all the practical issues between now and then, the Home Office and the Minister must have a detailed understanding of what is intended at Oakington.
The issue for my constituents is who will be there. They may well be families and thus represent no significant physical security problems. On the other hand, initially it may consist of largely single males, giving rise to a physical security issue. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the regime will be relaxed, implying that there will be no additional security, and that those present will be able to obtain approval to visit shops or medical services, but that simply raises the question in the local community of why these people are being detained rather than being given temporary approval and dispersed elsewhere. If they are being detained there is presumably some risk of their absconding or of physical security problems, and a string of consequences flows from that.
The Minister says that there will be no additional security and no direct problems for the local community, and we are talking of a village rather than a city context. If that is true, we must be clear about the character of the persons there and why they need detention, with all that that implies in terms of maintaining security, but do not require security to the extent that the local community needs to be concerned about the relaxed nature of the regime.
We shall come to all these issues, but at the heart of the matter is a failure on the part of the Home Office to understand that it is not sufficient to have announced such a facility and its legal base, without amplifying on the character of the regime and how it fits with those who will be there.
I have no fundamental objection to the establishment of the facility, and the Minister knows that I have made that clear locally. We are in a difficult situation. The problem is substantially of the Government's making, with a 60 per cent. year-on-year increase in asylum applications, but it is a problem that we must solve. If a centre at Oakington can assist in the fast assessment of applications—it is generally agreed that speedy assessment is necessary—well and good, but I am also sure that we need to be clear about the character of the regime to be applied there, so that the safeguards that should be applied to the asylum seekers themselves exist, and the safeguards for the local community that have been hinted at in letters to me and in meetings with the local community are delivered, so that the process does not become a burden or a source of concern to my constituents.

Mr. Corbyn: When the Minister opened the debate, she said that one reason for having detention centres—Oakington came to mind—was the great financial burden imposed on local authorities and the demands on their social services departments. What worries me about that is that, if we are to say that it is too expensive for local authorities to undertake the work necessary to support asylum-seeking families—particularly families—and they are put in the equivalent of a detention centre, either the cost will be transferred to a detention centre, if it is properly run, or the asylum-seeking families will be offered much less in the way of local authority and social services support than they would get if they were placed in the community. I find both those suggestions unacceptable.
12. 15 am
My borough, like many inner-London boroughs, contains a large number of asylum seekers. The local authority staff work extremely hard in supporting them in the best way that they can, but the introduction of the voucher system for food and the like has done enormous damage to relationships in the area. Large numbers of asylum seekers scout round the place looking for the appropriate supermarket in which to spend the vouchers. They cannot cash them on the market or anywhere else, so they spend more to get less although they have an inadequate income. They also have the inadequate diet that goes with it. We should be realistic: we are saying that asylum seekers apparently deserve less than 75 per

cent. of what the poorest in this country receive in income support. That is no way to treat people who have come here, within the terms of the 1951 Geneva convention, seeking a place of safety.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain what exactly is happening with the development of detention centres and the powers of detention that go with that. I am disturbed by all that has been said about Oakington being set up. Indeed, under the previous Government I initiated Adjournment debates on Campsfield detention centre, its administration and all the problems that have gone with it. If Oakington is to be anything like Campsfield, it will have high security, massive gates and lots of guards. Basically, a prison will be established there. Unless she can assure me that Oakington will be very different—more like the supportive centres that some European countries have—I shall have to conclude that it is part of a process of assigning asylum seekers to particular detention centres around the country from which their applications will be fast-tracked. I suggest that the very fact that applications will be fast-tracked and applicants sent to such places will be prejudicial to a fair hearing of their cases.
We have to realise that the cause of people seeking asylum is events in other countries, some of which are of our own making. It is all very well for us to complain about the number of asylum seekers coming from Turkey, but at the same time we are selling arms to the Turkish Government, who are doing so much damage to so many Kurdish people in that part of the world. There is a foreign policy connection.
My hon. Friend the Minister ought to be ensuring that the local authorities, which are doing their best, are given sufficient support and money and are, above all, reimbursed quickly when they undertake such expenditure. There should be no further development of any detention centres without specific proposals coming before the House following proper consultation. Such centres should not be introduced as holding centres when, in reality, they are detention centres that are, as I understand it, very much like Campsfield, Haslar and the others, which have a poor reputation.

Mr. Allan: I shall summarise our views on our amendment, but first I should dispose of the Oakington issue. We did not intend to have the major debate on it, but our discussion has been useful. Although occasionally robust, in many ways the debate has shown why the guillotine motion was flawed: I do not feel that any time has been wasted, but we are discussing only the second group of amendments and there is plenty more to be said on other issues. However, I am speaking with a heavy heart because I am taking up time that I would like to use to debate other issues. I hope that the Minister will take on board comments made from both sides of the House about the need for a further statement on Oakington and more time to discuss the issue. There is agreement on that and I hope that she does not feel unable to make such a concession.
On our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1, I shall be fairly blunt: I believe that this is knee-jerk legislation which has been introduced purely as a result of the disturbances in Kent over the summer and the coincidence that they took place when the Bill could still be amended. Someone said, "Cor lumme, guvnor, we've got a problem down in Kent. We've got to do something


about it. Let's get some legislation on the statute book." In many ways, the Bill follows the dangerous dogs principle: something high profile has happened and it has made the newspapers, so we have to pass legislation. That exercises me and my hon. Friends because it is a key issue: in a free Parliament, people who want to live in a liberal society should spend as much time defending the citizen from the state as giving the state new powers to impose on the citizen.
In this case, the citizens are those who do not have British citizenship as yet, although some will eventually achieve it. We do not seek to make a distinction between those who have come from abroad and those who happen to be British citizens in terms of the civil right to be free from detention and from having one's liberty restricted. The proposed provision represents a fairly unfettered power to restrict the right to free movement and access.
The Minister has talked about the proposed power as a possible form of curfew, yet if we do not amend the Bill, the law will prohibit freedom of movement subject to any conditions imposed in the relevant regulations. The Bill does not stipulate day or night, or specify anything more than giving the Secretary of State a power to impose restrictions on people's movements.
To put it bluntly, the provisions effectively surrender to the British National party and those who have taken to the streets and sought to attack asylum seekers. Blame does not always lie 100 per cent. in one direction, although that seems the clear implication of the proposed legislation. It is saying that there will be trouble if a certain group of asylum seekers in a particular district go out at night, so, without confronting the cause of that trouble, a power will be introduced to keep such people inside. That is a very dangerous route to go down.
There are already proportionate provisions under the Immigration Act 1971 for detention where there is a problem. The Minister said that the Government's legal advice is that the powers are supposed to be used only in response to absconding. That is right; the state should not take to itself powers to detain, imprison or hold people under house arrest unless to do so is a proportionate response to some offence or mischief.
If applicants are criminal, it is right under certain circumstances to lock them up. It may be right to detain people who abscond from the immigration service, so long as they have the right to challenge the decision and prove why they would not abscond. However, it cannot be correct to provide an arbitrary power under which the Secretary of State can decide to keep people under house arrest because he judges that, otherwise, public order offences may be committed and that those people should be protected from themselves. He is giving in to those who might be seeking to cause harm and contribute to the public order offence.
So many questions are left open. How will the power be enforced? What will be the penalties for breaching it? What if someone is in genuine fear of torture or death in their home country and does not conform to the Secretary of State's curfew? Would the Secretary of State ship such people home to face torture and death? How will legitimate legal challenges be dealt with?
The powers for dealing with somebody in a family are not clear either. Lord Williams expressed some very different views in another place. In one instance, he described how the new powers could be used to develop

reception facilities in which people would reside. Therefore, the powers are about putting families and individuals into a new form of detention centre. So, we have the proper detention centre, the strange hybrid beast of the Oakington detention centre and the new-power detention centres. We are adding again and again to the powers of the Secretary of State to deprive people of their liberty, applying different conditions and tests to each.
What power will an individual have to challenge such decisions? The Government are giving with one hand and taking back with the other. To the Government's credit, on detention powers under the 1971 Act they have given us a presumption in favour of bail, with standardised hearings after seven days, for which we have called. However, they have introduced another power under which the maximum time limit is not specified and there is no ability for individuals to challenge the restriction of liberty. Such knee-jerk provision takes us two steps back, just when we thought that it was one of the few elements on which we on the Liberal Democrat Benches thought we had taken one step forward.

Mr. Clappison: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that all that we have heard makes nonsense and a mockery of the Home Secretary's proud boast about the Special Standing Committee procedure? Such matters should definitely have been considered at its sittings.

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. Groups that work with refugees and others who are subject to immigration control have passed many pieces of information to me expressing their extreme concern, which would have been forceful evidence in the Special Standing Committee.
This is a sensitive issue, but sensitivity does not mean lack of scrutiny. The reverse is true, precisely because it is sensitive, and because we know that some of the forces not of conservatism but of fascism have been involved in the incidents that have forced the Government to bring the measure forward. Those forces have been there in Dover and other parts of Kent, peddling their filth and their muck around the streets. We know that they are involved—and that means that we should talk about the issue for more time, not less. We should not rush through a Lords amendment that, when we think about the history of where it has come from, we see is clearly a reaction to the forces of fascism.
We must be careful about the process of tagging bits on to Bills—or why not leave Bills open all the year round so that we can simply tag extra bits of legislation on to them at various stages? I have no doubt that the provision would not have emerged if the Bill had not still been open to amendment over the recess.

Mr. Stephen Pound: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he causes grave offence in implying, by associating the word "fascism" with it, that the Bill is a knee-jerk reaction to what happened in the summer? Does he accept that what has been happening in many constituencies for many years is intolerable, and that it is in no one's interests that it be allowed to continue? Does he not at least accept that there is an


element of good will and positive thinking on the part of the Government, and an attempt to resolve the situation before it degenerates even further?

Mr. Allan: I have been careful not to say that the Bill as a whole is related to the wider issue and the wider build-up of problems. I say simply that the specific measure before us, which the Minister has already said was introduced in response to public order incidents involving fascists over the summer—[Interruption.] She made the point herself that it was a response—

Mrs. Roche: No.

Mr. Allan: It was a response to public order events in Kent, and my reading of the newspapers—

Mrs. Roche: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he too must be careful and report accurately what I said. I said that the power was new and would not be used routinely, but would be subject to scrutiny. I made it clear that public order would be one of the considerations affecting its use, but not the only one. The hon. Gentleman forgets himself.

Mr. Allan: I take that elucidation on board, but the incidents in Kent of which we are all aware constituted one of the factors behind the Lords amendment. I still bluntly maintain that the provision was introduced purely because of the coincidence of the Bill's remaining open when the incidents occurred, and that that is not the appropriate way in which to respond to such events.
I return to the fundamental principle that the state should restrict the liberty of the individual, whether that individual be a citizen or not, only in extreme circumstances and when it has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, subject to proper scrutiny, why it should take those powers.
If the Government do not accept our amendment—or even if they do, but still press ahead with the powers that they are taking—we shall move into a world in which children under 10, and foreigners subject to immigration control, can be subject to such things as curfews and home detention orders without proper scrutiny, and without having committed any criminal offence. I urge the House to support our amendment to restrict the powers, and to be very careful about placing such powers on the statute book.

Mr. Dawson: I am extremely perturbed by Lords amendment No. 1, and the prospect of
the provision of, facilities for the accommodation of persons".
That is partly because the language seems so benign, and it has been difficult to find out what the facilities might be and what they might mean.
It is a shame that at the end of our dealings with a complex and challenging Bill, such a far-reaching proposal has been made. I simply do not understand the need for such accommodation. I do not understand the institutional rules that will need to surround such provision, nor its place within a human rights agenda.
The most disturbing aspect is the fact that we shall expect children, either as part of families or unaccompanied, to be accommodated in such facilities.

Mrs. Roche: There is no suggestion whatever that we would seek to place unaccompanied children at Oakington.

12. 30 am

Mr. Dawson: I am grateful for that clarification. However, children will still be held at such institutions as part of families. To accommodate children in circumstances that will be, at the very least, restricted seems to me to be wrong. It goes against our concept of childhood and the ability of parents to care properly for their children. It will also deny parents access to the facilities that their children need. Those children could end up living among undesirable people and be unable to get away. That is inappropriate.
We have heard of the need for proper discussion of the regulations surrounding the proposals at an early stage, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to make arrangements that stop such facilities being used for children in any circumstances. The facilities cannot accord with the United Nations convention on the rights of the child or with an agenda that stresses care for children and family friendly policies. I hope that the facilities will not be used for children in any circumstances.

Mrs. Roche: I am glad that we have had this debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised many important issues and I have listened carefully to the requests for as much information as possible about Oakington. I shall reflect on how we can make that available. We are already actively consulting the voluntary organisations and have been open with them about access.
I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that it would be wrong to split up families, and that is why we are providing the accommodation at Oakington. I must also say to the Liberal Democrat Members who have spoken that I believe that they will have cause to repent the tone of their remarks, when they have time to reflect on them tomorrow in the cold light of day. It is a great shame that they made their comments in such a way. In contrast, both Labour and Conservative Members made several practical points.
The most humanitarian approach is to speed up applications so that we can deal swiftly with those cases that are unfounded and can grant status to those whose cases are genuine as quickly as possible. Indeed, the Government have shown their commitment to that approach by publishing a consultation document on refugee integration. [Interruption.] Liberal Democrat Members are talking among themselves, but they never mentioned the positive steps that the Government are taking. I hope that the House will agree to the Lords amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 8, at end add—

'(2) No person shall be accommodated by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) for a period exceeding 10 days.'—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Question put, That the amendment to the lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 296.

Division No. 317]

[12.34 am


AYES


Allan, Richard
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ballard, Jackie
Keetch, Paul


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Kirkwood, Archy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Brand, Dr Peter
McAllion, John


Breed, Colin
McDonnell, John


Burnett, John
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Burstow, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Moore, Michael



Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Canavan, Dennis
Rendel, David


Chidgey, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Salmond, Alex


Cotter, Brian
Sanders, Adrian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Stunell, Andrew


Fallon, Michael
Webb, Steve


Fearn, Ronnie
Welsh, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Willis, Phil


George, Andrew (St Ives)



Harris, Dr Evan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Sir Robert Smith and


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Mr. David Heath.




NOES


Adams, Mrs lrene (Paisley N)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clelland, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Barron, Kevin
Coleman, lain


Bayley, Hugh
Connarty, Michael


Beard, Nigel
Cousins, Jim


Beggs, Roy
Cranston, Ross


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bennett, Andrew F
Cummings, John


Benton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Berry, Roger
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Betts, Clive
Dalyell, Tam


Blackman, Liz
Darvill, Keith


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Borrow, David
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Denham, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dismore, Andrew


Bradshaw, Ben
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Donohoe, Brian H


Browne, Desmond
Doran, Frank


Burden, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Drew, David


Butler, Mrs Christine
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fisher, Mark


Caplin, lvor
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Casale, Roger
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Caton, Martin
Flint, Caroline


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flynn, Paul


Chaytor, David
Follett, Barbara


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)



Fyfe, Maria


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gapes, Mike





Gardiner, Barry
McDonagh, Siobhain


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Macdonald, Calum


Gibson, Dr lan
McFall, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mclsaac, Shona


Godsiff, Roger
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Goggins, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNulty, Tony


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McWilliam, John


Grogan, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hain, Peter
Mallaber, Judy


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hanson, David
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Martlew, Eric


Healey, John
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, lvan (Harwich)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hesford, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hill, Keith
Morley, Elliot


Hinchliffe, David
Mountford, Kali


Hood, Jimmy
Mudie, George


Hope, Phil
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Norris, Dan


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hurst, Alan
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hutton, John
Olner, Bill


lddon, Dr Brian
O'Neill, Martin


lllsley, Eric
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jamieson, David
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jenkins, Brian
Pearson, lan


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pendry, Tom


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pond, Chris


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pope, Greg


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kemp, Fraser
Prosser, Gwyn


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Purchase, Ken


Khabra, Piara S
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kidney, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rapson, Syd


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Raynsford, Nick


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rooker, Jeff


Laxton, Bob
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lepper, David
Rowlands, Ted


Leslie, Christopher
Roy, Frank


Levitt, Tom
Ruane, Chris


Lewis, lvan (Bury S)
Ruddock, Joan


Linton, Martin
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Salter, Martin


Lock, David
Sarwar, Mohammad


Love, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


McAvoy, Thomas
Sawford, Phil


McCabe, Steve
Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry


McCartney, Rt Hon lan (Makerfield)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert






Shipley, Ms Debra
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Tipping, Paddy


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Todd, Mark


Singh, Marsha
Touhig, Don


Skinner, Dennis
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Snape, Peter
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Soley, Clive
Tynan, Bill


Southworth, Ms Helen
Walley, Ms Joan


Spellar, John
Ward, Ms Claire


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wareing, Robert N


Steinberg, Gerry
Watts, David


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
White, Brian


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stoate, Dr Howard



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stringer, Graham
Wilson, Brian


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winntek, David


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wray, James


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Tellers for the Noes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being more than five hours after commencement of proceedings on the supplemental allocation of time order, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to [Special Entry].

Lords amendment No. 139 and amendment (a) thereto agreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 135: Mr. Mike Hall, Mr. Tom Levitt, Mr. David Lidington, Mrs. Barbara Roche and Mr. Keith Simpson; Mrs. Barbara Roche to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 135 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance Amendment (New Deal) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.

That the draft Social Security (New Deal Pilot) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.

That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) (Amendment) Order 1999 (S. I., 1999, No. 2930), dated 26th October 1999, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved. —[Mrs. McGuire.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Executive and Legislature

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mrs. McGuire.]

12. 48 am

Mr. Tony Benn: The Adjournment debate tonight is about the role of the House of Commons. If it is any relief to the Minister who is to reply, I am not really expecting any sort of response. If he listens, I shall be very content because what I want to talk about deals with the House itself.
My qualifications for opening this debate are that I was elected 49 years ago this month and have fought 17, and won 16, contested elections, which the Library tells me is a record equalled only by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Churchill. The Library also told me that 431, 622 people had voted for me, and it is on their behalf that I want to speak tonight. Having sat in 14 Parliaments under 11 Prime Ministers, with eight Speakers, I feel qualified to comment on the work of the House.
I should like to make clear what the debate is not about. It is not about relations between the Government and the Opposition. It is not about relations between Front Benchers and Back Benchers—what one might call the Privy Councillors and the rest. It is not a debate between Conservative and Labour. It is not a debate between left and right. In the long history of Parliament, all those are relatively new issues. The debate is about the oldest issue of all—the relationship between the Government and the governed. The House of Commons speaks for the governed. The debate is about the role of the House of Commons as a legislative assembly and about relations between the Commons and the Government of the day.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I look back for a moment at our history. We say that we are and always have been a parliamentary democracy, but I am afraid that it is not quite as simple as that. When I take visitors round the House, I point out that all the statues here are of people totally opposed to parliamentary democracy and in particular to votes for women. The truth is that there has been a long struggle from the very beginning of time for the common people to be represented in such a way as to have some capacity to influence the Government of the day.
Britain has always had a Government. Julius Caesar was a Government. He introduced a single currency, but I will not go into that. William the Conqueror, in Westminster abbey on Christmas day, in his coronation speech which I know almost by heart, pledged to govern the country himself. There was no question of popular consent. Then there was Charles I, and so on. But the universal adult franchise has been developed only in my own lifetime. I was born in 1925. Women were not trusted with the vote then until they were 30. Men were so arrogant that they thought that women were not really up to it until they had reached a certain maturity of years. The abolition of the secondary vote—the business vote—and the university vote took place only in 1948, about 18 months before I arrived here. So we are discussing how the development of the franchise impacts or should impact on the Government of the day.
The nation votes for a Government. That is obvious. When people vote at a general election they are concerned not just with their own representative. To be a Minister is

a very hard job. I did it for 11 years, so I know that side of the story as well. The powers of a Minister and particularly of the Prime Minister are immense. In most cases, they derive not from the House but from the Crown. I want to come in a minute to the difference between Executive powers and the powers of the Government to legislate. Ever since 1688, when we had the glorious revolution, the powers of the Crown have been restored. When the Prime Minister appoints a bishop, he uses the powers of the Crown. When he appoints a judge, he uses the powers of the Crown. When he appoints a Minister, he uses the powers of the Crown. When he appoints a peer, he uses the powers of the Crown. When he appoints a commissioner, he uses the powers of the Crown. When he appoints the chairman of a royal commission or the BBC, he uses the powers of the Crown. For none of those powers is there any accountability to the House of Commons.
I once got into some difficulties for advocating the appointment of 1,000 peers to deal with the House of Lords. The Prime Minister is showing some move in that direction himself, having appointed 150 peers in the past two and a half years, and having offered peerages to members of the royal family, which is an innovation that I am trying to sort out in terms of our history. The powers of the Crown are the powers of the Government, and they have not much altered over the centuries. They include patronage and the power to go to war or to make peace. We had no vote on the war against Yugoslavia.
Of course, all the laws in Europe are made by the royal prerogative of treaty making. I was on the Council of Ministers for four years. Every time that I agreed to something, I was using the royal prerogative of treaty making. Indeed, since we joined the European Community as it was, the power to make laws by prerogative has returned for the first time since 1649—with a significance that I will not go into in any greater detail. The parliament in Europe is not the European Parliament but the Council of Ministers, which makes the laws and meets in secret—the only Parliament that does so. The Government control the agenda of our Parliament and the parliamentary timetable. Although I shall not go into the matter, it is well known that, wearing their party hats, Prime Ministers and the party machine have much influence over the conduct of Members in all parties.
If we move away from the election of a Government to the election of a Member of Parliament, constituencies vote for a representative. The electors want to be represented. Any Member who deals with correspondence—as I am sure we all do—will know that people write to us because we represent them. If people write to us from another constituency, we suggest that they get in touch with their own MP. The idea of representative government is quite different from the idea of government from the top.
When we arrive in this place, we elect a Speaker. Long may that be the case. I do not want that to be interfered with by an extension of patronage. We are here to scrutinise and challenge the Executive; we can table parliamentary questions and motions, hold debates and serve on Select Committees. We can accept, amend or reject Government legislation.
My next point is so obvious that it might shock people. Governments do not make laws. Members of Parliament make laws. I have heard Members say, "The Government have decided to do this or that—the Government have


decided to introduce means tests for disability benefits. " They do not; we do. When one of our constituents asks, "Why did the Government do that?", it is no good our saying that the Government did it—we did it. We are legislators. The function of the House as a legislative body has been obscured, to a large extent, by the requirements of party loyalty and by the practice of the House falling into line with the parliamentary majority of the day. However, those are our duties. They are duties that we must discharge. That is the meaning of a parliamentary system of government.
Of course, during the time I have been a Member, great changes have occurred—at an accelerating rate over recent years—that have altered the focus of power. There is a growing centralisation of power in all parties. I said that I would not say anything that was politically controversial, but the House will agree that the tendency to the centralisation of power did not appear recently, although Mrs. Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, was known to be a strong central leader. Earlier Prime Ministers shared that characteristic. However, we must note that centralisation of power.
Another phenomenon that we need to examine constitutionally is the tendency for an informal coalition to bypass the electors. I shall not go into great detail on the question of Liberal Democrat Members being on a consultative Cabinet committee, but people did not vote for that in the general election. They voted for one party, which received a majority of the votes, and for another party, which received fewer votes, and the Government of the day are now bringing in the party which received the smallest number of votes. That creates the impression in the public mind—not so wrongly—of a huddling together at the centre. That factor is changing the nature of the House. When we hold debates, I have no idea, as a Back Bencher, what announcement made by Ministers has already been agreed with the Liberal party. No report is made to us on such matters—and no report is made by the Liberal party. I do not criticise that—indeed, as I hope to show, I am not criticising anything—I am trying to examine clinically what is happening to our system.
There is the impact of technology and globalisation. Globalisation is not entirely new; the old empires were global in character—when I was born, I think that the British empire covered 20 per cent. of the world's population. That was a form of globalisation. Now, of course, the free movement of capital creates enormous power. International organisations now have greater power—the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation or, to a lesser extent, the United Nations itself. Those powers have taken over from this House and, as we shall discover increasingly, if the House were to take action, or to try to take action, that protected our citizens in a way that ran counter to an agreement reached, under royal prerogative, by the Government with the WTO, we should find that what we were doing was illegal.
Of course, Europe has had a profound effect, as has devolution, with the result that the boundaries will have to be examined. In addition, there is now a far bigger role for the media. As I have always explained to people, Parliament is merely a "parlement"—we are an elected talking shop, but the real talking shop has long since moved elsewhere.

I want to be clinical so as to avoid being controversial, but I think that, without any announcement of any change being made, this country is moving from a parliamentary to a presidential system. It appears to me as an observer that, increasingly, all effective power comes from No. 10 Downing street. I understand that the current Prime Minister has twice as many advisers as his predecessor, although I do not know how many that is—20, 30, 40, 50 or 60. That is not a new development—I had two advisers when I was Secretary of State for Industry and for Energy—but it is new in the sense that it is now becoming apparent to many people, certainly to me, that the real cabinet is now in No. 10 Downing street and that policy announcements made have been discussed within that cabinet. However, that cabinet has not been elected, nor have its members been through the rigorous selection process applied to the civil service. It is far more like the American system.
That has clearly altered the character of the real Cabinet. My diary from January 1968 tells me that I had eight Cabinet meetings in a month, most or many of which lasted morning and afternoon. I understand that the Cabinet now meets for between 20 and 40 minutes. I have not probed in an improper way, but I can only conclude that the Cabinet is no longer the centre of real decision making. That has changed the relationship between the Government and Parliament, because Cabinet members sit on the Treasury Bench and answer questions. They might be less able to do so now that relations between Ministers and the Prime Minister are conducted on a one-to-one basis. I am told that no Cabinet papers have been presented by individual Cabinet Ministers since the election. When I was a Minister, I presented many, as did other Ministers, but that process has passed away without comment.
It is often said that the House of Commons is being bypassed. It is known that most statements made at 3. 30 pm have been fully aired on the "Today" programme, and that Members of Parliament are secondary recipients of the information. All Governments have done that, but I do not recall its being done in quite that way in the old days.
The Prime Minister's patronage extends to the House of Lords; Select Committees are to be reviewed by the Government—the Executive attempting to control in some way the Committees that we set up; and there are rumours that the Speaker might be replaced. There are no effective checks and balances in our new presidential system comparable to those in the United States. As we know from recent history, an American President has to think about the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Supreme Court, but the president of this country does not have to think about any of those things.
Those are facts—although I hold strong views, I make no comment. Every Prime Minister can do what he likes, and the current one certainly does. My concern is the quite different question of how the House of Commons should respond to the situation I have tried to describe clinically. People say that our power has slipped away with the merging of our sovereignty, but the problem in politics is always how to respond to a situation over which one has no control. Very few people control their own situation—even the Americans could be destroyed by a nuclear weapon launched by China or Russia. The question is, how do we respond to that?
I shall set out what I take to be the obligations of Members of the House of Commons. We have obligations to our political parties, both nationally and locally. With the possible exception of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), none of us would be here were it not for the fact that we stood as party candidates. I am well aware that I would never have become a Member of Parliament or a Minister had I not been a member of the Labour party.
It is therefore right and proper that we recognise that we are carried into the House by a party at an election. I joined the Labour party on my birthday in 1942 and I intend to die in it—but not quite yet. We are all committed to the manifesto that brought us here. It seems quite reasonable that, if the party promises something, we, as individual Members, have an obligation to support it.
We are also committed to the electors that we represent, who choose us. They employ us, they can dismiss us and we must speak for them. I have learned far more from letters from constituents, and from my surgeries—500 or more people come to them every year—than from listening to debates in the House. I say that without discourtesy, because they bring the real experiences of life to me.
We are also responsible to our consciences and convictions, because the only image that matters is the image in the mirror when one shaves in the morning. No other image matters; we have to live with ourselves.
However, we—I am speaking of whoever happens to be a Government Back Bencher—are not required to take orders from the Government when a policy has not been in the manifesto, has not been put before us and has not been the subject of consultation. This very day we have had examples of that.
On welfare reform, I did not vote against the Government; I voted for disabled people. I very much resent the press talking about a rebellion. There was no rebellion. There were Members of Parliament voting according to their convictions, in the interests of their constituents. Some may disagree, as people did, but those who voted for the Government were not actually voting for the Government; they were voting for the changes in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. I greatly resent the current personalisation of media coverage-the references to the "awkward squad", the "mavericks", the "rebels". This place is elected to give a judgment on the measures or motions brought before it, whether by Government or Opposition.
This evening we also debated immigration issues. Europe divides us. Why should the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) follow the line of his leader if the leader is changing the line on Europe? He is under no obligation to do so. Our duty is to speak and vote as we believe to be right, within the framework of loyalty that I have described to our party, to our constituents and to our conscience.
We must defend our Speaker from any attempt to remove her. I say that because, recently, a second rumour appeared that Ministers wanted to remove our Speaker.
We must control the Select Committees. Select Committee members should not be appointed by the Whips; we should elect them in the House by secret ballot. Select Committees should elect their own Chairs and not allow the Prime Minister of the day to change them. Select Committees should be given power to

enforce their theoretical powers to call for persons, papers and records. Professor John Griffiths, a retired professor of public law, has sent me a most interesting memorandum in which he says that a Select Committee should be able to punish people who do not answer questions, subject to the House reversing that punishment. I also believe that there should be more free votes.
With the help of Members across the Floor, I have tabled an early-day motion. The preamble rehearses much of what I have said, but I simply read the operative passage:
That this House…therefore invites all…Members, while honouring their personal and political obligations and loyalty to their own party and the manifesto on which they were elected, to speak and vote more freely in the House on the proposals put before them, and by doing so to re-assert their historic role as elected representatives, their right and duty to express their own deeply-held convictions and their responsibility for maintaining the role of this House as a democratic legislature holding all governments to account, having been elected by the people for that purpose.
I believe that that is the right responsibility for all of us, whichever party we belong to.
These are very moderate and reasonable proposals, but the issue raised by this discussion is enormous—the future of democracy. It is certainly true that the public, or many members of the public, feel unrepresented. That may even be true of some people in the House and, for all I know, of some people in the Government. There is cynicism—it is not a new problem—because people feel that after one has got over the election, the Government of the day do what they want.
I believe that Members of Parliament must reassert their role as Members of the House of Commons, and that the Government must accept it.
I am not asking the Government's permission to make my speech, or even asking them to respond. Every Government must learn that their majority and their power depend on the consent of the House. No one who has worked as hard as I have to get the Government into power would wish to withdraw that consent. I campaigned for Labour in 1935, and I shall campaign for Labour all my life. However, if we could approach the role of the House in the way that I have described, both Parliament and the credibility of the parties would be strengthened.
I hope that this will not be the last speech that I shall make in the House of Commons, but the House will understand that I should not be sorry if it was remembered. It has expressed my deep convictions and my determination that the new tendency towards centralisation should not obliterate the very thing of which we boast most proudly.

1. 10 am

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on securing this debate. As ever, his speech was extremely interesting and erudite. The attendance in the Chamber at this time of night shows how much interest there is in his views. I should also like to place on the record my personal thanks to him for the kindnesses that he has shown me in my years in the Labour party, particularly during the 1980s. He has always been willing to discuss, argue and be supportive.
Having said that, I have listened carefully to his arguments, and I believe that he built them completely on fresh air. It was not becoming of him to repeat rumours.
If there is evidence of a Government threat to the House's right to choose the Speaker, my right hon. Friend should bring it to us. That would be an outrage. If there is no evidence, my right hon. Friend does not help our debate by repeating rumours.
On the day before the majority of hereditary peers lose their right to vote, at a time when the Government have decentralised power to a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales, and at a time when the Government intend to decentralise power to a new authority in London, it seems strange to accuse that Government of centralising power. All the evidence goes against that argument. The Government have given power away and increased the level of democracy.
My right hon. Friend's next accusation was that the Government have adopted a presidential style. However, his supporting argument was that the Government have advisers. I am glad that there are twice as many advisers in Parliament as there used to be.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: They are not in Parliament.

Mr. Stringer: I beg the House's pardon, and apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I meant to say in No. 10 Downing street.
When my right hon. Friend was a Minister, he had advisers. It is good to take as much advice as possible from as many people as one can. It is no denial of democracy to have people from different positions giving information. It is no evidence of presidential style to count, as though in a classroom, attendances at Cabinet meetings.
The Government gain their authority from the House. If they could not secure a majority in the House, the Government would not continue. That is the essential point about parliamentary democracy in the Commons. The record shows that the number of questions that the Prime Minister has answered in the House and the number of statements that he has made since the general election compare favourably with the figures from the same period before that election.
I should move on to my right hon. Friend's solution to the so-called problem of centralisation, although I simply do not believe that the problem exists. The solution is to have more free votes. Every Member of Parliament is free to pass through whatever Lobby he or she likes when a vote is held. That is not the basis on which the parties—[Interruption.] I hope that, if that comment is quoted, it is quoted in context. Hon. Members have the right to pass through whatever Lobby they wish. Of course, hon. Members have party loyalties and they may choose to support or oppose the Government. If all hon. Members decided to vote this way and that in this place, it would be not a parliamentary democracy but chaos.
I do not believe that any sensible person, including my right hon. Friend, thinks that a Government could work in a completely unwhipped system. In such circumstances, party manifestos would have to be 2 ft thick—and I

remind my right hon. Friend that the Labour party did least well at the polls with its longest manifesto in 1983. Labour has done better when we have focused on simple policies.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: No principles.

Mr. Stringer: No; we have principled policies that we can communicate directly to the electorate.
It is absurd to suggest that there should be free votes in this place and that Whips should not be involved in debates. My right hon. Friend was heard tonight to say, "Where's our Whip?" as he voted against the Government.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has been a very interesting debate, promoted in a serious vein by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), to which the Minister is making an absorbing response. However, I seek your guidance. I take exception to a Government Whip suggesting that I was being somehow improper in exchanging with the Deputy Chief Whip—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must take his seat when I am on my feet. This is a half-hour debate and time is extremely precious. It is not a general debate.

Mr. Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Mr. Howarth: I was threatened.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order and I do not intend to take any more.

Mr. Stringer: My simple point is that when my right hon. Friend said, "Where's our Whip?", did the voters of Chesterfield and the local branch of the Labour party know that he was associating with a Whip from no known political party?
The House is being modernised, and democracy in this place is increasing. Select Committees are not toothless watchdogs. One has only to read reports from Select Committees comprising a majority of Labour Members to know that they are tough. There is now more pre-legislative scrutiny-in fact, it is often occurring for the first time. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend is losing the argument. He holds a perfectly respectable position in the broad spectrum: he advances essentially republican arguments. My right hon. Friend is entitled—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes past One o'clock